From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OseWJ-00074d-1L for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 16:26:11 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 367C7E074E; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:25:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F301DE074E for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:25:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6BDE1B40C7 for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:25:10 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -0.769 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.769 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.237, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_NUMERIC_HELO=2.067] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7++8fAAXUt9z for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:25:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D95E71B42BF for ; Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:25:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OseV4-0004cm-84 for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:24:54 +0200 Received: from 68.168.167.146 ([68.168.167.146]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:24:54 +0200 Received: from grant.b.edwards by 68.168.167.146 with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Mon, 06 Sep 2010 18:24:54 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: OT: advice sought on new laptop for Gentoo Date: Mon, 6 Sep 2010 16:24:45 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <201009052125.17134.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> <201009060816.53091.alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.168.167.146 User-Agent: slrn/0.9.9p1 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: 41ed9c5f-6b05-4690-ba38-6785c2d0e7a4 X-Archives-Hash: 555b2ccc0c179acd6b093275d05bdbeb On 2010-09-06, Alan McKinnon wrote: >> Yes, there is an inherent problem: in order to get what I consider >> acceptable vertical size/resolution you have to buy something that's >> rediculously wide. > > Untrue. > > Vertical resolution depends only on the available dimension and the > number of pixels-per-inch of your screen. Ah, how conveniently you ignored the _size_ requirement and concentrated solely on the resolution. > How do you manage to take the position that screen height somehow > depends on the machine width? Remember that we are talking regular > sized notebooks here Of course screen height depends on width. To get a display height equivalent to my current Thinkpad's 15" display (height 9.2") with a 16:9 display, you have to buy a laptop that's 17" wide. My Thinkpad is 13" wide. I simply don't wan't to carry around that extra 4" of width. >>> There are good reasons for it. It most easily fits the overall >>> dimensions of the machine, you have a wide and not very deep keyboard >>> plus space for a touchpad and palm rests. It's all approximately >>> 16:9. >> >> No it's not. At least only on any of my laptops. I suppose you can >> tack on a useless numeric keypat to try to take up some of the extra >> horizontal space that's required in order to get a screen that's tall >> enough to be useful. > > I have a 16:9 in a regular sized notebook, a Dell M1530. There's no > numpad. In fact the keyboard takes up less space horizontally than > I'm used to. How tall is the display (physically)? How wide is the laptop (physically)? > So please tell me again where this machine width thing comes from? Well, the height and width are related by a fixed ratio. With a 4:3 display, the laptop's width has to be at least displayHeight*(4/3). With a 16:9 display, the laptop's width has to be at least displayHeight(16/9). For a given height, a 16:9 display is 30% wider. I want nice tall display (prefereably at least 9-10") without having to increase the width beyond what a standard "laptop" style keyboard takes up (about 12-13 inches). > Personally, I think you went cheap and bought a less-than-ideal > screen based on price. Now you're just being insulting. My laptop display was almost top-of-the-line for IBM at the time: 15" 1400x1050. There may have been a 16" 1600x1200 available in another product line, but it wasn't available in the model line I wanted. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but IMO the "cheap" factor is why we got 16:9 displays on laptops in the first place. A 15" 16:9 display is roughly 10% smaller (cheaper) than a 15" 4:3 display. But, the salesdroid can talk the consumer into paying more for a cheaper product: "Wow, for only $100 more we can move you up from a 15" regular display to a 15" WIDESCREEN display! $100 more and it's 1.6" shorter and has 10% less screen area! What a deal!! > I didn't make that error - I spent the extra bucks, sacrificed a few > features here and there and went for the best on offer. I have full > 1200 height (the same as I get out of my 21" CRT monitor) which > instantly renders all your arguments redundant. OK, how high is your display and how wide is your laptop? > So tell me again why there is something wrong with 16:9? Because I don't want a 17" wide laptop, and I do want a 10" tall display. > I think you have it conflated with 800 height which indeed is > pathetic. No, it's about physical form factor: height vs. width. I want a physically tall display on a laptop that doesn't take up half of my neighbor's tray table. My idea display on a laptop would probably be a 4:3 16" 1600x1200. -- Grant