Slashdot Mirror
Dell Offering 1600x1200 Laptops
Fervent writes "Dell has started offering laptops today with the new UXGA screens. These higher-res LCD screens proport better, clearer graphics at no extra power cost. Details on the new laptops are available at CNet." They don't say how big the actual screen is, but ya gotta be scared... I can see 1280x1024 on a 15" screen, but 1600x1200 is pretty scary... I find a lot of things to small at that res on a 21" monitor. Then again, just pump up the font size and everything is crisper... of course those icons on web pages sure don't get any more legible.
Will people please keep in mind that the size of fonts on screen is in no way proportional to the size of the individual dots on the screen.
Smaller dots means that an individual character of a certain size will be drawn using more pixels, leading to a sharper and more well defined representation of the character.
If you cannot understand this, then just memorize this little example. ;-)
In the old days (more than 5 years ago) laser printers printed at 300 dots per inch (dpi), now a cheap one prints at 600 dpi and good ones at 1200 dpi.
Text printed on a 600 dpi printer isn't half the size of text printed on a 300 dpi printer
BTW. 1600x1200 on a monitor with 18" viewable area gives around 120 dpi. 1024x768 on a monitor with 14" viewable area gives around 75 dpi.
How many defects will they typically ship with? Many "acceptable" LCDs (acceptable to the manufacturer, not necessarily the customer) have one or two pixels that are always on or always off. How many bad pixels will consumers of this screen have to live with?
Ok, I don't know if this would work or not, but most people's complaints about this seem to be that this resolution is too small to be usable. Well, how about using a fresnel lens like this? I guess that it might interfere a little with image quality, but you do still gain desktop space. Of course, you'd have to come up with some support mechanism other than a styrofoam box, but I'm sure that enterprising geeks could come up with something.
What do you guys think?
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
Forgive my ignorance, but surely if the screen has bad pixels when you buy it then it is faulty, and you can legitimately ask for the laptop to be replaced?
Surely you cannot. The Fine Print explicitly gives the number of bad pixels that the manufacter defines as "acceptable"; less than that and you do not have a warranty issue because it isn't "faulty" by definition. I've seen fine print that allowed FIFTY dead or always-on pixels. Your only real choice is to make sure your vendor has a "no questions asked" refund policy, get your money back, and try some other store and/or manufacturer.
-- John Dierdorf, Austin TX
Modern browsers (heh) are supposed to actually retrieve the logical ppi (pixels per inch) from the OS, and render type that way.
.com/font_size_intervals/altintervals.html
Generally, it's either 96 or 72, and I'm sure that if it were 200 ppi it would work just fine.
Of course, those designers who insist on rendering every little thing as a bitmap are screwing this pooch... bitmaps don't scale or have a "size" per-se, outside of their pixel dimensions.
Some others have mentioned that Opera's renderer can zoom on the fly... which solves both problems.
For anyone who's interested in this stuff, there's an excellent (in-progress) related article here:
http://style.metrius
-----------------
Mucous membranes are the part of your brain that, like, make you think about mucous. --Beavis
because we're all wise enough to know you're too ignorant to appreciate it. sonny.
Agist fucks.
The childish demand that the elderly subsidize a younger person's lifestyle is marked +4 insightful (funny, maybe, but insightful? Give me a break.) while the above humorous reposte is marked down as a troll?
As a young person (who would love to have some georgious older woman set him up in style) I would say this agist shit reflects very, very poorly on the slashdot crowd (the moderators in particular, not the original post or the reposte, both of which I found rather funny).
Perhaps humor is simply too difficult a subject for this forum?
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Interesting. Thanks for the clarifications.
~Cederic
An open-source program called fiasco (you can find it on freshmeat) reduced a picture (2.1M as a bmp, 800k or so png, 500k jpeg) to a 5k file. Very good quality (as good as the jpeg), and LOTS smaller. It can also do movies (without sound, someone want to do that and say bye to mpeg?) but even a 30 second movie was 2MB (if you put an mp3 with it, about 2.5MB for half a minute!!)
Personally I'd prefer teachers/professors actually teaching instead of going from textbooks all the time, but I guess that's not quite as profitable. On the plus side, eBooks would be many times easier to copy than paper books, so I could end up saving money after all.
Well, I'd prefer to get that resolution on a 15 millimeter display. Hanging right in front of my eyeball.
I completely can't understand this point of view. Every single icon I know of is too freakin huge. I run 1600x1200 at work, and 17--x13-- at home just so I can get the icons, titlebars, and other widgets small enough to allow my content windows to reclaim some of the desktop.
and I never hear anyone else support this point of view... are you all going blind from too much you know what, particularly you UI designers? What is with the huge freakin icons!
Does it make me happy to have the larger resolution displays become standard? NO! When they become standard, all of the wankers will simply adapt, and start issuing ever larger spoodge.gifs to fill up the new screens.
It runs linux better than it runs windows, and it has a screeen which is bigger than most monitors can display...
Shame I still need to reboot into windows to watch DVD's legally.
Any Slashdotters out there know how I can hack my Torisan 6x dvd drive to go Multi region?
Assuming that Dell implements the same sort of technology that they have been with their Inspiron 7500 series with this new screen the actual resolution that you run the screen at is almost irrelevant. Why? Simply put, the video card scales the display image appropriately to fill the entire screen. This means that rather than 800x600 only using 480000 pixels to display itself, it will actually use the full 1920000 provided by the display. I've used this feature a few times in presentations and it works just fine for those of us who can't see a Origin2000 from 3 feet away.
e-Books will be great, especially at >150dpi on a device around 6.5" by 5" (1024x768). Colour isn't important though, greyscale is fine for books. For textbooks though, I can see the advantage of colour.
But there is still nothing like the feel of a proper book...
In short, the default 640x480 is simply _impossible_ to use. I used to run 1600x1200 on my 19" monitor, but it looked pretty bad, so I "let" it slip down one level. I really want to get one of the $2,000 Sony 21" monitors that supports _enormous_ resolutions. (2K something by 19xx something).
And don't don't get me started on the Internet connection. Essentially, all 50+ computers went through a dedicated 56K connection... (It was "true" 56K, though). I tried to talk the computer teacher into buying at least one T1 line. (It might have been in the OC-x ranges... )
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name
SUWAIN: Slashdot User Without An Interesting Name
Set things up so the popular Linux GUI environments can scale to vastly larger resolutions, and you get the following delightful result:
- screens continue to expand and expand so users can have DSWs and one-up each other in boardrooms
- MacOSX/vector/no problem!
- Linux/some hack or other/here we are at 16000x12000, fun fun
- Windows: ow ow ow!
If this REALLY gets going, Windows' legacy of holding 90% or so of the app mindshare will cause lots of major hurtingI can't wait until my display device has comparable resolution to my hardcopy device.
Actually, this exists already (sorry, no link). Read in some graphics magazine that the military uses a special grayscale display that has 600DPI and is as sharp as a printed page. Costs an obscene amount of money of course.
Which sets of letters actually correspond to which resolutions? 1600x1200, 1280x1024, 1920x????, 1153x900, 1024x768, etc. Thanks!
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
The solution is not nearly as simple as setting your font size large(r) as many posts have suggested... It's quite complicated, as many, many late nights coding the "fix" these past months have proven to me.
And... 1600x1280 (or larger) DOES look like *#$%& on a 15" display (as far as fonts/icons are concerned) and I've got 20/20 vision; As a developer I LOVE more resolution real estate.
I work for Portrait Displays, Inc., Pleasanton, California. Our company is known in the industry for our Portrait/Pivot display utilities(rotating displays).
I'm a software engineer, working on a new product which "fixes" this problem with hi-res/hi-density displays.
We are currently working with several large computer and display manufacturers (unable to name them here, but they are the leaders in the industry), testing our product in preparation for shipping later this year.
We (and the display industry as a whole) expect these new hi-density (133-200ppi, pixels-per-inch) displays to become prevelant over the next couple of years.
I personally expect to remain quite busy, working late hours, getting the product to market;
But rest assured - We've got the software solution!
And - 133-200ppi looks FANTASTIC!
The product is not currently listed on our company web-page, as we're still testing and negotiating contracts for distribution.
Visit: www.portrait.com (soon) for details & pricing.
"The distance between insanity and genius is measured only by success."
It does 1400x1050 which seems just about perfect for most of my work.
Sadly, I have yet to figure out how to make Linux able to use it, and thus am stuck with Windows on it for the near future.
Its the first time in a linux install that I've ever got sound working before video.
I feel bad though, now I don't have the biggest laptop screen on the block anymore
Tim Gaastra
Tim Gaastra
Build a better mousetrap and the world will immediately get their fingers caught in it.
you can run 800x600 on a 1600x1200 monitor, and it will still look better than on a 800x600 monitor. I use 800x600 quite a bit on the internet for viewing pages where the pictures are microscopic. Viewing size does not equal native resolution. Of course it will still look best at 1600x1200 with a larger font setting.
A woman who loves a man even though he is poor has probably found a man who will love a woman even though she is homely.
"..don't you eat that yellow snow."
One of the advantages of riding a bike to work everyday is that your ass and legs look better. Young or old, you'll always find chicks (and dudes) to dig that aspect. :-)
(...given a moderate commuting length and a spirited attitude toward the ride, of course.)
Please, don't talk about bare numbers with tech support calls to prove a point. Talk about percentage of tech support calls for that products, related to percentage of sales of that product.
:)
If you get 2 tech support calls per week for the 5000 model, out of (pulling a number out of the air) 100 (20 per day?), then you have a rate of 2%. In numbers shipped (not dollars) how does this 2% compare to the sales of model 5000 laptops? Based on numbers sold, does the model 5000 still compare well? Does it compare well for it's audience? (Percentage of machines sold to that class of user, whether power user, generic business user, or whatever.)
Do you only do laptops, or do you do tech support for all Dell PC products? This will also affect how valid your data point is.
If you don't have this information, that's okay, but presenting a bare number and pretending it has significance without knowing context and how it relates to sales figures... well, that's how bad statistics are made.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
Even though Mac OS X is based on resolution independent technology (a modified version of Display PostScript), the UI is still laid out in terms of pixels, and the numbers of pixels are hardcoded in the style guide.
This was a big mistake. Now that very cool things are starting to happen with X, I believe that we will end up creaming Apple.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs
For years I've been using ctwm because of this. Any window manager with virtual screens would do.
I bind f10,f11,f12 to switch to screen 1, 2, 3 quickly. You can have a screen dedicated to programming, one to netscape window(s), one to games for example.
Pity there is no real equivalent for NT though (only some inconvenient things that try to approach it).
I'm not entirely sure that's the case - get hold of a RISC PC and change the resolution. Now look at the button bar at the bottom.
Good idea, but I'm not sure it's done on RISC OS...
(course I may be wrong)
In 1995, the tolerance on my Toshiba laptop was at least 12 dead pixels (800x600). In 1999, on my IBM laptop, it was 8 dead pixels (1024x768) although in some cases, 3-4 if they were stuck in a color. Clusters of bad pixels (2 next to each other) make a stronger case. Most SGI 1600SW's I see for sale have at least 1 bad. A perfect screen still rare, despite all the improvements out there.
Most manufacturers will NOT accept the screen back under warranty as a matter of course. I have tried with IBM when a laptop showed with 1 bad. They said tough. I begged. I screamed. 1 bad pixel is "well within the manufacturer tolerance".
Unless you buy your laptop retail, and inspect it before you leave, you generally have 2 options -- return it to the manufacturer and then buy a new one (too much of a hassle), or try and make more pixels go out and make it look like a defect (harder than it sounds).
Manufacturers do make exceptions. However, in my experience, unless you make a really good case, you can forget about getting any satisfaction if you claim 1-2 pixels are stuck off.
"Not to poo-poo progress, but does anyone see a need for super-high res 15inch laptop monitors? "
800x600 should be enough for anybody, then?
:)
> What happens when we get 4000x3000 displays?
;)
Hopefully this will never happen. Why? Because the aspect ratio is 5h1t3. Once you've worked on a widescreen monitor it's a bloody nightmare going back to 4x3, it's like going from a 21" 1280x1024 back to a 14" at 800x600, but worse.
Give me 1960x1280 or give me death
Mike.
Tales from behind the Lagom Curtain
because we're all wise enough to know you're too ignorant to appreciate it. sonny.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
This idea was inspired by the old Acorn BBC Micro computers, the idea being that there were about 6 graphics modes all with varying resolutions and amount of colours, but to the programmer there was only one resolution of 1280*1024 (if memory serves correctly, which it doesn't tend to).
An idea way in front of its time.
This solves one of my main objections to traditional laptops -- that they don't have a suitable graphics chip to drive an external monitor at a decent resolution (read 1600x1200). I still don't feel a 15" laptop is sufficiently portable to be worth the effort, but it's a good sign for the future.
"The invisible and the non-existent look very much alike." -- Delos B. McKown
That OS be Acorn's RiscOS. Anyone remember mode 22, for the visually impaired?
Does my bum look big in this?
About a month ago I set up a few new Inspirons (Dell model) with this screen on them, and it was just freakish. My default, they were at top-res, and moving the mouse was like running through a football field. Especially considering the monster-screens on those things. (I'm used to very old laptops. These ones were 15".)
Funny though, that even after a minute of photo-quality screen use, everything seemed crunched together when I set it for 800x600.
You can get the IE power toys thing from the IE download site that lets you do this. I agree, It's pretty handy sometimes....
---
DO NOT DISTURB THE SE
If you're having problems with legibility with your X server, you may well have the DPI set wrongly. It defaults to 75dpi if you don't set it, which is often wrong for modern, high-res screens. (eg. my 15 inch 1280x1024 display is about 120DPI)
See the tip on linux.com about it.
Make sure to read the comment by Andreas Plesch on the tip as well, as a better method for setting the DPI is given than the original suggestion.
Choice of masters is not freedom.
These things are sweet man. Yes the resolution does go that high and text is still readable if you have good eyesight. These systems use the ATI mobil rage chipset with either 8 or 16MB of video RAM. The chipset includes anti-aliasing technology. This means that you Can run it at 800x600 or whatever you want and it will still look good. Also there is no more problem with viewing DVD videos on both an external monitor and the lcd. (ATI rages with 4MB video ram would get a black picture on external monitor). Other than the processor, lcd and video card these are exactly like the original Inspiron 5000's. Now for what everyone wants to know. How often do they break (i do tech support for Dell.) Well the 5000e is a bit too new for me to make a solid judgement on it but I almost never get a call for the 5000's. Maybe one or 2 a week. Very good reliability. No stress fracture issues that I know of. Well made machines. As a side note I am not in sales. I am in tech support. I'm about as unbiased of a person out there who has actually seen one of these systems already ;)
Pithy, yet ultimately meaningless, phrase expressed with gusto!
My mistake, the screen was one step below that, and almost unusably sharp. Ye gods! The new ones are crazy!
Take it from someone who drives a mighty schnazzy vehicle -- the kinds of chicks who swarm you aren't the kinds of chicks you want to date. They're turning you into a symbol of *money*, and that's what they're looking for.
...
And, for you women out there, when my girlfriend drives it, she says it's the skeeziest of guys who give her the most attention
People make the assumption that if you drive a fast convertible, you're just itching to give money and cocaine and diamonds in exchange for sex. Or maybe that's just here in Los Angeles.
-
bukra fil mish mish
-
Monitor the Web, or Track your site!
Eloi, Eloi, lema sabachtani?
www.fogbound.net
Gah, I can't believe I missed that. MUST. RUN. OUT. AT. LUNCH. Buy 30 Gig harddrive...
No sleep till SuSE!
Tim Gaastra
Tim Gaastra
Build a better mousetrap and the world will immediately get their fingers caught in it.
Actually color accuracy leaves something to
be desired on the 1400x1050 lcd.
The A20p I used had zero dead pixels.
The 15.4 inch displays are 1280x1024, only the 15" displays are 1400x1050. Very recently the 1400x1050 became available in 14" as well.
The 15.4" is 1280x1024, the 15.0 inch is 1400x1050. There is no 1500x1040.
Back in the mid-80s, people talked about the "3M" machines: 1 Million instructions per second, 1 Million bytes of memory, and 1 Million pixels on the screen. Well, in the first two, we are nearly 1000 times up from a Million, but even 1600x1200 is only about up by a factor of 2. What we need are more pixels over a much bigger field of view. SWAG-ing it, I'd say resolution of 1 arc minute over a field of view about 100 degrees in each direction - this is 36 M pixels. When we are there, then displays will nearly fill the user's visual field, which will make the experience of computing quite different than now (compare pictures of the Grand Canyon to actually being there). So when are we getting the super displays. Not for a long while yet, I guess.
-----------
"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."
This makes no sense. In order to get the new screen, you need to get a 16mb video card, but the Dvd only works with 8mb. What to do? Anyone know the answer? e-mail me ethabr@hotmail.com -Ethan
I agree with you
PCXL Forever!!!!
It's not really fair to compare the image quality you get on a monitor with that on a tft screen.
TFT screens are a lot clearer and dont suffer the same way that monitorimages do from blurriness.
What however would be really good would be a monitor mode which reported itself as 800x600 but whenever windows was called upon to render text it could use the extra resolution for excellent clarity.
That way you could have icons and graphics all at a decent size but with lovely crisp text. And programs like Coreldraw could be made aware of the resolution difference... just a thought tho.
Did I mention I afree?
PCXL Forever!!!!
I use 1600X1200 on the desktop at work. This will allow a way to do presentations that look the same on the laptop as I see them on desktop. I hate having to go over it again just to see what has changed when I get down to 800X600. WOOHOO .
Now, when are they in stock?
Cav Pilot's Reference Page
UNIX - Not just for Vestal Virgins anymore
Give me the modney!
PCXL Forever!!!!
why that can only mean one thing...
at last i can view my pr0n in absolute crispness!
Be you Admins? nay, we are but lusers!
By the time i'll actually be old enough to afford a 1600x1200 screen my eyesight will have faded enought that i'll run it at 800x600 anyway.
Just like how i'll be deaf by the time I can afford a decent hifi, and by the time i've saved up enough cash for a nice tvr sports car i'll be way past the age i need to be to pick up chicks in it.
Why cant higher quality stuff be sold cheaper than the low quality stuff so all the old people who dont know better subsidise me having a quality lifestyle.
what's a Troll?
PCXL Forever!!!!
Not to poo-poo progress, but does anyone see a need for super-high res 15inch laptop monitors?
I've really been impressed by the Dell laptops though. I work at a design firm that does a lot of CAD stuff, and one of my co-workers used one to finish up a highly detailed Pro/Engineer model on a plane ride. That's pretty impressive, considering the video demands, as well as the fact that that kind of work is pretty painful on anything less than a 21"
bla
PCXL Forever!!!!
Are there any fixes for this problem? What happens when we get 4000x3000 displays?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
This should make for some really clear e-books. MS's ClearType and MS Reader (which, if you haven't tried it, really does blow the socks off of Adobe Acrobat in terms of readability and ease of use) now should display better than ever. I've course, I'm not going to spend the horrific prices that Dell is probably asking just to be able to enjoyably read Gutenberg e-texts, but I might buy one of these babies when TEXTBOOKS are commonly available in an e-book format. Imagine toting one slim laptop around, versus a back-braking collection of textbooks?
Does anyone know whether textbooks are available in e-book form?
Neopets - the best free game on the Int
How do you mean "they don't say what the actual size is"? Quote: Dell will offer UXGA on one of two Inspiron 5000e models introduced today. Consumers can choose from 15-inch UXGA and 14.1- or 15-inch SXGA+, SXGA or standard XGA displays.
Hooray! I am lucky enough to use the 1400x1050 display on a Dell Inspron 7500, and it is very good. Its main problem is vertical viewing angle, no matter what it is not possible to see a block of the same colour as the same colour all the way down the screen. I hope they fixed it.
:D
One good side effect of having such tiny pixels is that dead pixels are far less noticeable than they are on lower resolution displays.
I know what I want for Christmas
- Derwen
http://fsfeurope.org/
I use 1600x1200 both at home and at work, and I'd just really like a 18,1" tabletop TFT capable of 1600x1200 !!
-
Under revision.
Any technology distinguishable from magic, is insufficiently advanced.
Resolution is good.
If you're working with low-res characters in dot-matrix calculator-vision, then they need to be big to be able to see them. If they're on a higher resolution screen, then they get better shapes, anti-aliasing etc. which makes them more readable. Although there's no simple "all 9 pixel high characters are readable" rule, it's certainly the case that smaller characters at better resolutions are more readable than larger characters, if their resolution is worse.
How small can you comfortably read on a screen ? On high-res paper ?
What browsers should be doing (if the host GUI isn't... remember RISC OS?) is provide a "zoom" button.
You know, so you can actually read those web sites designed for 800x600 on larger screens, the browser would be aware of its window size and have a button that says "Scale as if res was 800x600"
Then it resizes your fonts and the images accordingly. That would be a very cool feature, IMHO.
[please don't bother to reply saying 'shut up and go code it yourself' - I know...]
I tend to do a similar thing at home - a couple of days ago I realised I had a spare gfx card and monitor so I installed XF86 4.0.1
I never want to go back to just one monitor again - I run my main screen at 1600x1200 (19") and a 15" next to it at 800x600 (though that might change) - it's so useful being able to keep stuff open all the time without it cluttering up your desktop.
To keep this in perpective, keep in mind that print media (those of decent quality, that is) typically run in the 1200-2200 dpi range (on the original film from the imagesetter, at least). ;-)
Therefore, I strongly endorse the notion that we are now to the point where increases in screen resolution can be used to improve the quality of text display, rather than just making the old crufty 7x5 dot patterns illegibly small.
Remember, 9pt type should be 1/8" between baselines, NOT 9 pixels. (Obapologies for the American ruler and the implicit MICROS~1 bashing
I am using a Sony Vaio C1XD at 1024x480(768 virtual) on a 8.9" TFT.
1. you sit closer to a laptop screen
2. there is no flicker
3. in the right conditions backlit LCD is brighter than CRT
I was scared at first, but is very readable with no apparent eye strain.
realkiwi
Certainly the Inspiron 7500 that I have does, and I run Linux on a daily basis (and I'm using it right now).
The ethernet card took a while (30 mins) to get working, but everything else works fine. And that includes the suspend to disk, which really surprised me. The only thing lacking is the DVD player ;-)
Isn't it about time more browsers had this?
That's not really a solution. OK, you can zoom in and examine a graphic in detail. (Does that icon really look like an eagle with an erection? Is that a mole?) But what about a page -- or application -- that requires a specific number of pixels to display? If you zoom out to get, say, a superwide HTML table in view, everything's too small to read. Zoom in and you can't possibly follow the thread of text.
Here's an example: when I upgraded to Win2K, I forgot to make sure a driver for my video card was available. So, using the generic VGA driver (640x480 only) I go to support.dell.com, enter my service tag, and am taken straight to the download page. But there's no download button on the download page! Being a nonvisual person, it takes me a while to figure out that all the page content is exactly 750 pixels wide, and if I already had the driver I was trying to download, I would see the download icons neatly aligned on the right.
Problems of graphic size and layout are symptomatic of two larger problems:
The fact that so many people are suprised by the fact that some dead pixels are acceptable would possibly allow you to pursue the matter in a small claims court, it if came to that. A defect is a defect, regardless of what the manufacturer considers acceptable.
The problem is the same as that of airlines; we are all whores to lower prices, but still bitch and moan when we stub our toes on the corners that businesses need to cut in order to acheive them.
If laptop manufacturers were forced by law or convention to sell only 100% functioning LCDs then the prices would be much higher.
Does anyone know what percentage of sold LCDs are bad (ie have one nonfunctioning subpixel or more)? My family has had 5 laptops with 800x600 displays or better, and not a really bad pixel among them (one laptop had sticky, but not stuck pixels -- a tap would unstick them, likely a bad trace). Have we just been lucky?
We have a Dell laptop with 1400x1050 on 15.4 inch and I really like it. The linux installation was a little bit difficult, you have to set a special video mode at boot time (vga=791), otherwise the display will be black as soon as you start X11. Their support pages had the required pointers to the internet to find out about it.
I've been using Dell's XGA+ monitor (1400x1050 resolution). It's absolutely stunning, and does not cause any strain on my admitably young eyes (I'm 29).
I am a screen real estate hog. Back in 1995, I bought my first laptop--an NEC w/ a 12.1" XGA monitor (1024x768)--so that I could write Unix programs on the go (it ran Linux flawlessly) without forking out for a Tadpole (~$20,000 at the time). The XGA+ monitor causes less strain on my eyes than the old NEC. Furthermore, I suspect you can increase the resolution to 1600x1200 without causing eye strain. However, your mileage may vary.
--Be human.
Oh, that sounds great! I'm running to the store RIGHT NOW to buy my own copy! Oh my goodness I'm in Rhapsody! *g*
Free music from Jack Merlot.
Non-native resolutions should look better like this. If you're changing resolutions a lot (IOW, playing games :P) this could be really nice. Otherwise...well, how does 1024 by 768 look on one of these puppies?
well, if everyone has a nice car then it wouldn't be much of a status symbol anymore would it ?
Weh !
macos is tasty, i agree. but saying "everyone go out and get it" is silly.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
Pumping up the font size isn't going to work for everything. Is there an open Display Postscript? If not someone should get on it real quick.
On the other hand, no, on the SAME hand, I can't wait until my display device has comparable resolution to my hardcopy device.
I have a positive modifier on Troll. When I mod someone Troll their karma should go UP!
On my display, I have one pixel with stuck red. Under normal use, I don't really notice it. If I'm watching a film, or something, then it can be irritating. However, with smaller pixel densities, you would notice dead pixels less and less as their physical size decreases.
Unless they significantly improve the production process, there are going to be a lot of TFT panels sold with "stuck" pixels -- ie. stuck bright red, bright green, bright blue, or dead.
Every manufacturer sets tolerances for how many dead pixels are acceptable. What percentage would be acceptable to you? 1% of 1600x1200 pixels is a lot different than 1% of 1024x768.
The cost of manufacture must be very high no matter what. A bad TFT screen cannot be fixed -- it has to be tossed in the trash. I am thankful that my Thinkpad's 1024x768 screen has no dead pixels, but I am dreading the thought of my next laptop purchase. In my opinion, 1 bad pixel is one too many. It's a shame that none of the manufacturers feel the same way.
moron.
Hey now my new Dell will look like my Nescape on Linux!! Whoo Hoo
I suggest everyone go out and get Mac OS X. The graphics model will be resolution-independent and vector-based. In principle this means that you'll be able to switch to any resolution you want, and the OS will use those extra pixels to make everything look extra pretty.
Screen size and resolution, and really laptops in general, are like Frames-Per-Second, # Polygons, and such to business-types. They can't impress each other with their Voodoo 9000's and Razer mice, so they trick out laptops.
Business Guy 1: So then accounts puts out this spreadsheet of quarterly projected earnings, and they don't even bother to break it down into multiple sheets! I'm scrolling all over the place looking at it!
Business Guy 2: Really? Cause on my new laptop with 1600x1200 resolution, I was able to view the whole thing on one page.
Guy1: Well, that's great, but I bet it took forever to load with that 1 Meg video card your laptop has in it. Mine, on the other hand, has a full 4 Meg of video memory, plus 256 Meg of RAM. I can load the Powerpoint Org Chart presentation in no time!
Guy2: Too bad you've got that 2 Gig hard drive in there. Mine, on the other hand, has a full 10 Gig, not counting the extra 6 Gig drive I can put in my expansion bay.
I'm only half kidding here; I've actually seen scenes similar to this. It's actually pretty funny to watch two 40+ mid-level managers have a pissing contest to see who the CEO likes best.
And when Apple releases an OS with 128x128 icons everybody whines that they are huge... :-)
Maybe Apple will include a high resolution TFT with their first MacOS X-only-Powerbook
...I'm working hard right now(I'm 40) to make sure that my kids' kids do just that. Of course it also means that I'll end up with a lot as well. ;-)
Good judgement comes from experience, and experience comes from bad judgement.
- W. Wriston, former Citibank CEO
Manufacturers have very low yields when making TFT active matrix LCD displays. Most plants have a "glass mountain" of discarded defective LCD displays, so the end result is high prices and pixel defects.
I'm waiting for newer, cheaper technologies, such as the light-emitting-polymer displays which can be made by printing the polymers onto the display with a special inkjet printer.
Meldroc, Waster of Electrons
.. a look at this website, made by one of my coworkers. I found it very helpful:
Check it out
I'm going to be picking up my new ThinkPad A20p today or tomorrow (whenever i head into town) and that's running a "15.4 TFT 1500x1040, that's _very small_ for the average person, imho
Either way, it's cool, but 1280x1024 is 'nuff for me... then again *winks*
-
I'm sure plenty of you have heard of Opera... it happens to zoom rather nicely. I use it when I have the display switched over to my TV, so I can zoom in and actually read the writing on web pages at that horrible resolution... comes in pretty damn handy.
Isn't it about time more browsers had this? Are there any plans for Mozilla to include this functionality?
With difference between the top end and bottom end of display technology, and the tendancy of (less skilled?) web designers to create "best viewed in NxN" sites, html viewing software neads to be deisgned to cope with these differences.
Thad
Thad