Seeing as you neglected to name it, its fair to assume you have a soft roader.
My SUV is a 2015 GMC Yukon XL Denali 4WD
It has a low range gear and locking differentials, so it is a true 4WD. Nice improvement over last year's model when the Denali had AWD only (no low range gearing).
But in this one, I can select 2WD, 4WD (auto), 4WD High, and 4WD Low.
But the point was, an SUV isn't safer than a small hatchback, in fact, it's less safe than a hatch with the same safety features.
Not if my 5,981 pound truck hits your small hatchback it isn't...
-------------
SUVs and trucks in general have gotten a lot better over the past 10 years... What you're saying is all 100% true, 20 years ago... but times have changed...
If both happen in the same amount of time, the latter will hurt far, far more... the very airbags and seatbelts designed to help you may not be effective in that case.
I don't have hypothetical kids, I have three real ones...
It doesn't matter how well designed your 1,800lb car is, all the crumple zones and airbags in the world won't change the fact that 6,000lbs hitting 1,800lbs is just bad for the 1,800lbs.
For all that protection, the violence of the impact would be massive to anyone inside the small car, if they were in a head-on collision, the small car would be violently shoved in the other direction while the large SUV would probably just slow down but continue in its original direction.
What is more likely to hurt you? (assume both vehicles have everyone in seatbelts, both have airbags and crumple zones, etc.)
1. Going from 60 mph to 20 mph very quickly, but still in the same direction as before,
or.
2. Going from 60 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the opposite direction very quickly?
If the answer isn't obvious, you weren't paying attention in school.
A bicycle, huh? Come to Texas, show me how well that will work here...
First, we buy a whole lot more than 10 pounds of groceries... try 100+ pounds of groceries... the milk alone is more than 10lbs...
Second, the closest grocery store is 1.5 miles away, which is fine, but you have to cross a main 6 lane road (3 in each direction) to get there...
Third, even basic cars like a Honda Accord weight over 3,500 lbs. What car exactly would you like my wife to drive? A SmartCar? That would fold up like an accordion when a pickup truck hits it?
My SUV is 4WD, the roof is also reinforced and would withstand quite a rollover. It also has full surround airbags designed to protect in such a case.
It also has stability control, traction control, lane departure warning, collision alert, auto emergency braking, cross traffic alert, and adaptive cruise control.
To top that off, it has magnetic ride suspension, adjusting 1,000 times per second to the road giving it amazing handing. You won't confuse it with a sports car, but it handles turns better than you'd think for a 19 foot long 3 ton truck.
My 2012 model didn't have that and the difference between that and the new 2015 model is night and day, the new one is wider, lower, and handles the road far, far better than the old one did. The suspension grips firmer and I can now take corners 10 to 15 mph faster with confidence. However, I don't actually do this, instead I drive the way I used to and have increased margin for safety.
Which would be relevant if SUV's were remotely safe...
Nice big brush there...
I assure you that my SUV is much safer than your little small econo budget box car...
First, if they should meet in a collision, the mass of the larger vehicle means that it will simply win, push you out of the way, and keep going.
Second, modern SUVs are much better balanced and are far less likely to roll over than what was sold 10 or 20 years ago.
Third, I can control my own driving, what I can't do is control the driving of all the crazy people on the road. In single vehicle accidents, it is true that injury rates are higher in SUVs than in cars, but in multiple vehicle accidents, SUVs are the safer vehicle.
Since I can prevent a single vehicle accident by being a defensive driver and driving safely, I drive an SUV so if some other moron decides he/she doesn't have to do that, I'll have more armor to protect myself.
Too many governments and corporations continue to fail to understand that it requires having experts who actually know what they are doing be in charge of data security.
This doesn't mean you contract it out to the lowest bidder or hire the cheapest CS degree you can find.
It means you hire knowledge and experience, you hire expert skills, and those cost money.
So can you tell me, why is it we can get a man on the moon but we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled? Are we really that pathetic as a country that we can't just solve this problem?
Sure we could, just raise taxes by 20% on everyone who is working to pay for it...
Oh, but you don't want THAT?
Well, there are a whole bunch of people on SS in one form or another, every dollar that goes out, has to come in from someone who is working...
Tax too much and at some point people will cheat the system, or work less, because it isn't worth earning more.
The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.
Yes, the Judge would... but whenever a Judge issues such an order, they have to have it carried out by law enforcement, often by the Sheriff...
The Judge might find it hard to actually do anything about it, since the people physically in the courtroom can claim, "we'd love to comply, but our bosses in Washington won't give us access".
It sounds really nice that a Judge, using his/her pen, can simply make the whole Federal Government do something against its wishes, but reality doesn't always work that way.
No, you don't... but there does come a point where you're just being silly...
Reminds me of an old farmer... had a very old (40+ years old) truck that just drove around the farm, moving hay and other stuff as needed. It was old and beaten up, but it still started and still drove. Mostly, the farmer had to kick it sometimes and had to tinker on it from time to time, but he just wouldn't give it up, it was like old Bessy, no one wanted to put it out to pasture.
Yea, it is heartwarming and all that, but at some point, recycle the damm thing and get something reliable, efficient, and low maintenance.
There is using equipment for its full useful life, then there is taking it beyond that for bragging rights. There are people who will drive 25 year old cars, not because it continues to make any financial sense, but because they want to claim they are getting "full use" out of them.
Full use was obtained some time ago, now they are just old crappy cars.
A 15" monitor on a workstation that isn't actively used, that may only need to be checked every so often? Sure, no big deal.
A 15" monitor on a computer that you actually use every day? For productive work? Yea, ok, there are probably use cases where it makes sense. They would be rare indeed. Most people, maybe not all, but most, should recycle that and move on with life.
Everyone has a different point of view... A high end 720p plasma in a proper setting probably does look nicer than a cheap 1080p LCD does in the not proper setting.
You claim you couldn't tell the difference. Fair enough, if you can't, you can't. But you might get your eyes checked, because a lot of other people CAN see a difference. Back when 1080p came out, there were the exact same arguements being made, "oh, you can't see 1080p, 720p is all that is needed", blah, blah... same story, new numbers.
Another way to look at it is video streaming vs. Bluray. Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, etc. all will stream 1080p, at various quality levels. None of it equals a nice Bluray in terms of detail levels.
It can't, the bits just aren't there. A nice Bluray at 25 megabits vs. Netflix at 5 megabits, the image simply won't be the same.
You know what? I CAN tell the difference. Same resolution, both 1080p, but the Bluray is nicer.
That being said, we are quickly switching over to all streaming. Why? Because it is good enough and a whole lot easier to manage.
Of course, it is a TN panel, so to compare it to the IPS panels that Monoprice is selling isn't really fair. The TN panel has a faster response time, but the IPS panel is going to have better color accuracy and better viewing angles.
That all sounds nice, where it falls apart is when you understand that the human eye is analog and monitors are digital.
To put this another way, resolution won't be high enough until antialisling is no longer required. That is a crutch to compensate for resolution that is below what the eye can detect.
It is true that the human eye can't pick out specific pixels beyond a given point, but that doesn't mean in a moving image that the same eye can't see jaggies where there should be smooth lines.
That is why you need far more digital resolution compared to the analog eye.
It was at a high end home theater store, couch was setup in front of two Sony TVs, same content on both.
The 4k really is incredible, once you see a proper 4K source material. But it isn't ready for prime time yet due to a lack of consumer facing content. But that will change.
------------------
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I'd love the new 32" 4k panels, but they need another revision or two and a price drop before I buy. But I fully expect in 3 years, when my current panels are out of warranty, I'll have them.
You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.
Yes, in a perfect world, Windows would render everything, toolbars, mouse cursor, text, all a the same physical real world size, regardless of your monitor size or resolution.
Look at the iPad 2 and the iPad 3, the resolution doubled in both directions, yet the OS knows to display stuff at the same physical size. That is what Windows should do.
A 24" monitor sounds like it fits your needs, if so, more power to you.
A resolution of 1920x1200 is ok on that screen, but 2560x1600 would be nicer.
Assuming a high-DPI aware OS of course.:)
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
It is easy to say that what you are used to is "just fine", but so was B&W TV once.:)
Real life is much higher resolution than any current computer monitor, when the monitor is 600dpi, then I'll probably be happy. My $130 printer can put out a much higher resolution image than my $1,000 monitor can, we have far to go...
At the default DPI scaling of Windows, you're correct. And that is an issue that Microsoft needs to fix.
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
Right now I run my web browser at 200% zoom, rather than adjust the DPI of Windows 7, because DPI scaling in Windows 7 is still broken.
At 200% zoom, the screen is nice and clear, the text is large and easy to read.
Compare this to if I just cut the resolution in half and ran at 100% zoom. Everything would be physically the same size, running at 1280x800 instead of 2560x1600.
But I assure you that it looks like crap. That is a perfect example of how more pixels will help, you simply need a high-DPI aware OS.
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
A 65" 1080p TV and a 65" 4K TV, from 10 feet away, playing a proper 4k video source from a hard drive, the difference was "smack you in the face" obvious which one was better. (hint, it was the 4k)
The lack of current 4k content from Netflix, Bluray, Amazon Prime, etc. is the real problem.
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...
A 30" screen is just about perfect to put up 2 pages in Word or Acrobat, in "real size", meaning 1-to-1 compared to their real world size. That resolution is also high enough to at least make them sort of look like printed pages.
4k will get us there, I really would love to get a trio of the Dell 32" 4k panels, those would be outright PERFECT for previewing 2 letter sized pages side by size on one panel, and at 4k resolution, they would look like printed pages as well (or really close to it).
The thing is, Windows sucks at DPI scaling, Microsoft knows this and is finally starting to work on it. Windows 7 was supposed to fix that, but clearly didn't. The new Surface Pro 3 tablet is clearly adjusted with Windows 8 to compensate, Windows 9 may be where it finally gets fixed properly.
Smaller pixels are a great thing, if your application supports DPI scaling properly.
Slashdot Mirror
Seeing as you neglected to name it, its fair to assume you have a soft roader.
My SUV is a 2015 GMC Yukon XL Denali 4WD
It has a low range gear and locking differentials, so it is a true 4WD. Nice improvement over last year's model when the Denali had AWD only (no low range gearing).
But in this one, I can select 2WD, 4WD (auto), 4WD High, and 4WD Low.
But the point was, an SUV isn't safer than a small hatchback, in fact, it's less safe than a hatch with the same safety features.
Not if my 5,981 pound truck hits your small hatchback it isn't...
-------------
SUVs and trucks in general have gotten a lot better over the past 10 years... What you're saying is all 100% true, 20 years ago... but times have changed...
It is worth pointing out that national statistics may not apply locally.
1 in every 7 pickup trucks that GM sells anywhere in the world... is sold in Texas.
This really is a somewhat unique market, our local roads are overrun by pickup trucks and SUVs.
Your small car might be better off in NYC or SFO, but not in Dallas or Houston it sure isn't, when it is surrounded on all 4 sides by trucks.
They have, they are the cool toy of the month... (or year)...
But the actual numbers are pretty small and will never get big until the price comes down by a whole bunch.
BTW, for those playing along at home...
1. this is a 40 mph change in speed
2. this is a 80 mph change in speed
If both happen in the same amount of time, the latter will hurt far, far more... the very airbags and seatbelts designed to help you may not be effective in that case.
I don't have hypothetical kids, I have three real ones...
It doesn't matter how well designed your 1,800lb car is, all the crumple zones and airbags in the world won't change the fact that 6,000lbs hitting 1,800lbs is just bad for the 1,800lbs.
For all that protection, the violence of the impact would be massive to anyone inside the small car, if they were in a head-on collision, the small car would be violently shoved in the other direction while the large SUV would probably just slow down but continue in its original direction.
What is more likely to hurt you? (assume both vehicles have everyone in seatbelts, both have airbags and crumple zones, etc.)
1. Going from 60 mph to 20 mph very quickly, but still in the same direction as before,
or.
2. Going from 60 mph in one direction to 20 mph in the opposite direction very quickly?
If the answer isn't obvious, you weren't paying attention in school.
Hmm, must be nice where you live...
A bicycle, huh? Come to Texas, show me how well that will work here...
First, we buy a whole lot more than 10 pounds of groceries... try 100+ pounds of groceries... the milk alone is more than 10lbs...
Second, the closest grocery store is 1.5 miles away, which is fine, but you have to cross a main 6 lane road (3 in each direction) to get there...
Third, even basic cars like a Honda Accord weight over 3,500 lbs. What car exactly would you like my wife to drive? A SmartCar? That would fold up like an accordion when a pickup truck hits it?
My SUV is 4WD, the roof is also reinforced and would withstand quite a rollover. It also has full surround airbags designed to protect in such a case.
It also has stability control, traction control, lane departure warning, collision alert, auto emergency braking, cross traffic alert, and adaptive cruise control.
To top that off, it has magnetic ride suspension, adjusting 1,000 times per second to the road giving it amazing handing. You won't confuse it with a sports car, but it handles turns better than you'd think for a 19 foot long 3 ton truck.
My 2012 model didn't have that and the difference between that and the new 2015 model is night and day, the new one is wider, lower, and handles the road far, far better than the old one did. The suspension grips firmer and I can now take corners 10 to 15 mph faster with confidence. However, I don't actually do this, instead I drive the way I used to and have increased margin for safety.
Which would be relevant if SUV's were remotely safe...
Nice big brush there...
I assure you that my SUV is much safer than your little small econo budget box car...
First, if they should meet in a collision, the mass of the larger vehicle means that it will simply win, push you out of the way, and keep going.
Second, modern SUVs are much better balanced and are far less likely to roll over than what was sold 10 or 20 years ago.
Third, I can control my own driving, what I can't do is control the driving of all the crazy people on the road. In single vehicle accidents, it is true that injury rates are higher in SUVs than in cars, but in multiple vehicle accidents, SUVs are the safer vehicle.
Since I can prevent a single vehicle accident by being a defensive driver and driving safely, I drive an SUV so if some other moron decides he/she doesn't have to do that, I'll have more armor to protect myself.
All 5,981 pounds of it...
Too many governments and corporations continue to fail to understand that it requires having experts who actually know what they are doing be in charge of data security.
This doesn't mean you contract it out to the lowest bidder or hire the cheapest CS degree you can find.
It means you hire knowledge and experience, you hire expert skills, and those cost money.
So can you tell me, why is it we can get a man on the moon but we can't take care of a few million old people and a few million disabled? Are we really that pathetic as a country that we can't just solve this problem?
Sure we could, just raise taxes by 20% on everyone who is working to pay for it...
Oh, but you don't want THAT?
Well, there are a whole bunch of people on SS in one form or another, every dollar that goes out, has to come in from someone who is working...
Tax too much and at some point people will cheat the system, or work less, because it isn't worth earning more.
The judge would have wide discretion in issuing sanctions for contempt of the discovery order. I personally doubt this is the sort of thing where a whole bunch of people progressively higher up the food chain would be willing to take up residence in a jail cell. We'll see.
Yes, the Judge would... but whenever a Judge issues such an order, they have to have it carried out by law enforcement, often by the Sheriff...
The Judge might find it hard to actually do anything about it, since the people physically in the courtroom can claim, "we'd love to comply, but our bosses in Washington won't give us access".
It sounds really nice that a Judge, using his/her pen, can simply make the whole Federal Government do something against its wishes, but reality doesn't always work that way.
No, you don't... but there does come a point where you're just being silly...
Reminds me of an old farmer... had a very old (40+ years old) truck that just drove around the farm, moving hay and other stuff as needed. It was old and beaten up, but it still started and still drove. Mostly, the farmer had to kick it sometimes and had to tinker on it from time to time, but he just wouldn't give it up, it was like old Bessy, no one wanted to put it out to pasture.
Yea, it is heartwarming and all that, but at some point, recycle the damm thing and get something reliable, efficient, and low maintenance.
There is using equipment for its full useful life, then there is taking it beyond that for bragging rights. There are people who will drive 25 year old cars, not because it continues to make any financial sense, but because they want to claim they are getting "full use" out of them.
Full use was obtained some time ago, now they are just old crappy cars.
A 15" monitor on a workstation that isn't actively used, that may only need to be checked every so often? Sure, no big deal.
A 15" monitor on a computer that you actually use every day? For productive work? Yea, ok, there are probably use cases where it makes sense. They would be rare indeed. Most people, maybe not all, but most, should recycle that and move on with life.
Can you point to a study that says they can't?
Everyone has a different point of view... A high end 720p plasma in a proper setting probably does look nicer than a cheap 1080p LCD does in the not proper setting.
You claim you couldn't tell the difference. Fair enough, if you can't, you can't. But you might get your eyes checked, because a lot of other people CAN see a difference. Back when 1080p came out, there were the exact same arguements being made, "oh, you can't see 1080p, 720p is all that is needed", blah, blah... same story, new numbers.
Another way to look at it is video streaming vs. Bluray. Amazon, Netflix, Vudu, etc. all will stream 1080p, at various quality levels. None of it equals a nice Bluray in terms of detail levels.
It can't, the bits just aren't there. A nice Bluray at 25 megabits vs. Netflix at 5 megabits, the image simply won't be the same.
You know what? I CAN tell the difference. Same resolution, both 1080p, but the Bluray is nicer.
That being said, we are quickly switching over to all streaming. Why? Because it is good enough and a whole lot easier to manage.
Interesting, those are getting cheap fast...
Of course, it is a TN panel, so to compare it to the IPS panels that Monoprice is selling isn't really fair. The TN panel has a faster response time, but the IPS panel is going to have better color accuracy and better viewing angles.
Still, that is darn cheap. :)
That all sounds nice, where it falls apart is when you understand that the human eye is analog and monitors are digital.
To put this another way, resolution won't be high enough until antialisling is no longer required. That is a crutch to compensate for resolution that is below what the eye can detect.
It is true that the human eye can't pick out specific pixels beyond a given point, but that doesn't mean in a moving image that the same eye can't see jaggies where there should be smooth lines.
That is why you need far more digital resolution compared to the analog eye.
I see. No, it certainly isn't "too high". More would be nicer. IF it could be scaled properly so that pictures and text aren't too big or too tiny.
Then we're in complete agreement. :)
Yes, but the 4k TV was 10 feet away... at the distance your CRT sits, the 4k TV would be absurd... :)
at 8-10 feet, a person with 20/20 vision can not make out better than 1080p on a 60" screen.
Why do people keep repeating this nonsense?
It was at a high end home theater store, couch was setup in front of two Sony TVs, same content on both.
The 4k really is incredible, once you see a proper 4K source material. But it isn't ready for prime time yet due to a lack of consumer facing content. But that will change.
------------------
Regarding your situation, I think you misunderstood my reply. I was talking about the pixel density on a 30" panel, it sounded like you think it is too high, as in, too many pixels. I think it is too few.
I'd love the new 32" 4k panels, but they need another revision or two and a price drop before I buy. But I fully expect in 3 years, when my current panels are out of warranty, I'll have them.
You are correct, Windows doesn't know how big your monitor is physically, and that is wrong, but it is that way due to legacy support and the fact that for a long time, monitors were all about the same size, give or take an inch.
Yes, in a perfect world, Windows would render everything, toolbars, mouse cursor, text, all a the same physical real world size, regardless of your monitor size or resolution.
Look at the iPad 2 and the iPad 3, the resolution doubled in both directions, yet the OS knows to display stuff at the same physical size. That is what Windows should do.
Yes, but other than at the very start, the price difference is so small, the "why not" factor comes into it.
Last Christmas I replaced our 60" Sharp Aquos TV with a 70" Sony 3D TV.
Partly to get a bigger screen, but mostly to put the 60" TV upstairs and replace the small TV that was there.
I paid about $2,200 for that new TV. Sony also makes a non-3D version of that exact same TV, for $100 less.
For a 4% price difference? Sure, I'll get 3D. We have used it a few times, it is cool, but not something we will use often.
4K? Yea, we will use that all the time, once the content arrives.
:). Yea, good riddance to those days... May they never return...
As it stands, I would be thrilled with a 300dpi computer monitor at the 30" size, shame no one makes one. :(
A 24" monitor sounds like it fits your needs, if so, more power to you.
A resolution of 1920x1200 is ok on that screen, but 2560x1600 would be nicer.
Assuming a high-DPI aware OS of course. :)
At the typical viewing distances of computer monitors, your current screen is not an ideal resolution, 4k probably is. For a 32" monitor, I would prefer 8k, but that is a ways off.
It is easy to say that what you are used to is "just fine", but so was B&W TV once. :)
Real life is much higher resolution than any current computer monitor, when the monitor is 600dpi, then I'll probably be happy. My $130 printer can put out a much higher resolution image than my $1,000 monitor can, we have far to go...
Text would be too small to see comfortably
At the default DPI scaling of Windows, you're correct. And that is an issue that Microsoft needs to fix.
The thing is, the higher DPI of these monitors is not a bad thing, and where it shines is in making the content on your screen sharper with fewer jaggies...
Right now I run my web browser at 200% zoom, rather than adjust the DPI of Windows 7, because DPI scaling in Windows 7 is still broken.
At 200% zoom, the screen is nice and clear, the text is large and easy to read.
Compare this to if I just cut the resolution in half and ran at 100% zoom. Everything would be physically the same size, running at 1280x800 instead of 2560x1600.
But I assure you that it looks like crap. That is a perfect example of how more pixels will help, you simply need a high-DPI aware OS.
Several points...
And I do think 4k is overkill for TV.
Having watched it in person, from 10 feet away, I have to disagree...
A 65" 1080p TV and a 65" 4K TV, from 10 feet away, playing a proper 4k video source from a hard drive, the difference was "smack you in the face" obvious which one was better. (hint, it was the 4k)
The lack of current 4k content from Netflix, Bluray, Amazon Prime, etc. is the real problem.
34 inches at 3440 X 1440 is too small, physically, for real work except maybe graphics.
Really? Then you probably think 30 inches at 256x1440 is too small, which is what all the 30" panels are. The problem is, that is horribly wrong...
A 30" screen is just about perfect to put up 2 pages in Word or Acrobat, in "real size", meaning 1-to-1 compared to their real world size. That resolution is also high enough to at least make them sort of look like printed pages.
4k will get us there, I really would love to get a trio of the Dell 32" 4k panels, those would be outright PERFECT for previewing 2 letter sized pages side by size on one panel, and at 4k resolution, they would look like printed pages as well (or really close to it).
The thing is, Windows sucks at DPI scaling, Microsoft knows this and is finally starting to work on it. Windows 7 was supposed to fix that, but clearly didn't. The new Surface Pro 3 tablet is clearly adjusted with Windows 8 to compensate, Windows 9 may be where it finally gets fixed properly.
Smaller pixels are a great thing, if your application supports DPI scaling properly.