Your error was that you replaced your monitors with new ones of lesser vertical pixel count. You should have bought 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 instead. Never skimp on monitors, keyboards and mice. They will generally outlast every other PC component you buy.
Go 2560x1440, then. A 27" monitor with that resolution is right around 108dpi, which is pretty darn nice. Or go for something like Dell's 4K/UHD 27", that's 163dpi. or 140dpi if you go for a 31.5" model.
And for pretty much all work except video and movie editing, 4:3 is better.
Why? You can most likely get a 16:9 format monitor with more vertical resolution than your old 4:3 monitor, and you'll be getting more horizontal space to boot. It's almost like having a dual-monitor setup in one monitor, what's not to like?
Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) for HP servers was a godsend back when I managed a reasonably-sized server farm. Being able to completely re-install a whole rack of servers remotely was extremely nice when the server room was a 15 minute drive away and someone else had the IT department car.
Yeah, but who wants a monitor that's only 960 pixels wide? That's the problem with 16:9. It's too wide, but at the same time not wide enough. If it was wider, you could replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one screen and lose the bezel running down the middle. But it's not, so you end with two 16:9 screens which is just stupidly wide. The 21:9 screens are more interesting than the 16:9 screens to me.
It's no problem with 2560x1440, it's wide enough to fit 2 full-size documents with room to spare for toolbars etc. on a single monitor. Or putting it in other terms, I have two 1280x1400 monitors side by side with no annoying bezel in the middle.
1920x1080 is bargain bin crap for anything other than laptops these days. 2560x1440 is standard and 3840x2160 (or 2x 1920x2160, better than two of these Eizo monitors) is quickly gaining ground.
"1440p" is not a computer monitor resolution. It could be 1600x1440 (16:9) or 2304x1440 (16:10) or 1920x1440 (4:3) or 1800x1440 (5:4), or with the 1:1 aspect ratio from this article's focus, it could be 1440x1440. Notice how 16:9 is the crappiest aspect of all of those. It's not useful like the 1:1 ratio, and it's fewer pixels than any of the others.
Errr no, that would actually be 2560x1440, the best aspect ratio of those possible options, with the most overall screen space. I should know, I have a 27" monitor with that resolution.
This 1:1 monitor from Eizo will only ever be relevant if it's significantly cheaper than a comparable-quality 4K/UHD monitor. 2160 versus 1920 vertical pixels, with a hell of a lot more horizontal space as a bonus.
Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".
Only if this monitor is cheaper than a similar-quality 4K/UHD monitor. UHD buys you 2160 vertical pixels compared to 1920 for this monitor, plus a hell of a lot more horizontal space to boot.
You're arguing that you get less screen area for the same diagonal size, but while that's obviously true, it's a useless metric. It's like buying lightbulbs by wattage, when you should be buying them by lumens, color rendering index and color temperature.
Who cares that you have to get a 24" widescreen (1920x1200) to get the same vertical resolution as a 20" tallscreen (1600x1200)? You're still getting the vertical resolution you wanted, but with more space on the side, plus the 24" monitor is going to be significantly cheaper. Good high-resolution (2160 vertical pixels!) monitors are cheaper than ever, why complain about extra horizontal resolution?
You can install the PPAPI version of Flash on Chromium pretty easily, and it's obviously included in Chrome by default. So the only NPAPI plugin that's truly missing is Java, and good fucking riddance, I say.
I never needed to scroll "for want of vertical space" on my 1920x1200 monitor, and I certainly don't need to on my current 2560x1440 monitor. I rarely even maximize windows vertically anymore, it simply isn't necessary.
Like I said: More than enough space for two full-size A4 pages with plenty of room to spare. Or for that matter a comfortably-sized browser window alongside two full-size 720p videos at once, if you're into that kind of thing. 2560x1440 will do a 4x720p video wall with no scaling, which can be quite useful for people working in visual media.
With monitor pricing the way it is currently, you would be crazy to insist on a 4:3 monitor, when you can get a 31.5" 4K (3840x2160) monitor that will handily replace a dual-monitor setup for much less than a single comparable 4:3 monitor, let alone two. And with no annoying bezels. I know we lost vertical resolution when everything went to 16:9 instead of 16:10 and 4:3, and things maxed out at 1920x1080 for a while. But now we're getting in back in spades, with more horizontal space as a bonus. You can get laptops these days with 1800 pixels of vertical resolution and crazy high DPI. What's not to like?
Widescreen monitors start to make sense once you cross a certain resolution threshold. A 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 monitor is brilliant for showing 2 or 3 pages at once side by side. I can comfortably fit two full-sized A4 pages on my monitor, with plenty of room to spare for toolbars etc., or have a web browser on one side of the screen while a full-size 720p video plays on the other.
As resolution increases, aspect ratio becomes less relevant.
Oh boo whoo, your racist bullshit got called out and now you're mad. Go cry me a river.
My source is that I actually live in Denmark, right in the middle of the Greater Copenhagen Area where most of these supposed problems should be, and you know what? It's all bullshit, there are no such "widespread" and "endemic" problems.
I meet plenty of muslims (along with hindus, sikhs and plenty of other denominations) in my daily life, and you know what? They're all every bit as friendly, courteous and non-outwardly-religious as the average christian. And a bunch of my friends live in the "troubled" areas of Copenhagen (Mjølnerparken, Tingbjerg), so don't give me any crap about "only visiting the nice neighborhoods. The bad parts of places like Vesterbro still have a problem, but it's not related to muslims at all, it's mostly related to trafficked prostitutes and their pimps.
Of course there are a handful of street gangs, but we've got whites-only biker gangs that are every bit as bad or worse, so how is that an immigration problem? And of course there are some religious nutcases who like to condemn everyone else to hell, but there are just as many on the christian side of things, the only different is that they're a little less blunt in their exclamations, but their intentions are identical.
TL;DR: Unless you live here, don't make assumptions about what it's actually like.
Actually, let me refute the very first statement from that Gatestone Institute rant:
Muslim immigrants in a town near Copenhagen have forced the cancellation of traditional Christmas displays this year even while spending lavishly on the Islamic Eid celebration marking the end of Ramadan.
This is completely false. Muslim "immigrants" (in reality second- and third-generation Danes with a non-Danish heritage) did not force the cancellation of traditional Christmas displays.
What actually happened is that the purchase and installation of a Christmas tree was put to the vote in the owners association, and since no one stepped up to manage the purchase and installation (despite there being plenty of non-muslims in the area) and because it was a large expense, it was voted down. And it was just the Christmas tree, all of the other Christmas celebrations were held as usual.
Also, they did not "spend lavishly" on the Eid celebrations, they held them in the exact same way that they've done for years, at a very reasonable spending level, completely comparable to the spending level for their Christmas celebrations.
- Russia Today, a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece. - Copenhagen Post, which despite being described as "neutral" is deeply tied to Jyllands-Posten which is well-known for its right-wing views. - Gatestone Institute, a notorious neo-con and anti-muslim think tank.
I'm willing to settle for a glossy display, but only if it's a high-res IPS display and no matte IPS option is available. TN panels can go sulk in a corner, they're worthless to look at.
I'm your type A slashdot computer geek and even *I* would prefer a chromebook over a windows laptop (typing this on Linux btw.)
I'm quite convinced that my next portable computer will either be an android tablet with an extra bluetooth keyboard or a chromebook - routing a chromebook with crouton and installing linux on it is quite easy, and 8 hrs battery time for 299 has a nice ring to it.
I feel the same way. I could upgrade my aging T42 (one of the best laptops ever, IMHO) to the modern equivalent (probably a T440 or X240), and I'd be willing to pay the premium price for another 10-12 year capable laptop. But a Chromebook would handle 99% of everything I ever use my laptop for and cost so much less. The Toshiba Chromebook 2 with the FHD IPS display looks like a nice candidate.
I had one of the original 7" display Eee 701s with the ~600MHz underclocked Celeron. Man, that thing was a turd. On the other hand, my dad is still using its replacement, a 1001HA with the 1.6GHz Atom and upgraded to 2GB RAM. It works brilliantly as an ultraportable diagnosis and firmware-flashing machine, and as a DMX controller for his amateur rock band.
I'm still using a T42 that I bought new ~11 years ago. Granted, I don't use for any heavy work, but with Arch Linux and XFCE, it handles basic everyday tasks just fine.
The battery is down to ~10-15 minutes of runtime by now, it's heavy, the screen resolution is low, some of the plastic has broken off one of the corners and I'm on the third (IIRC) mini-PCI WLAN adapter. Firefox/Chrome really doesn't like more than about 10 tabs open at any one time, multitasking in general is not advised.
But it plays 720p video (downloaded, not Youtube) just fine without dropping frames, surprisingly.
I've been considering an upgrade and I would be willing to buy another decently-specced Thinkpad in the hope that it would also last at least 10 years for everyday usage. But on the other hand, looking at my normal usage, why should I spend ~$2000 on the Thinkpad I want (FHD IPS display, SSD etc.) when a ~$200-300 Chromebook could handle all of it just fine, without leaving me completely hard-broken if I were to accidentally drop it or spill soda in the keyboard?
In Google's case, the "pound of flesh" is a little bit of privacy, for a whole heaping helping of convenience. A lot of people consider that tradeoff OK.
Please tell me where I can prioritize between different wifi SSIDs in iOS. Also, please tell me where I can see which 802.11 standard a given network is running, which frequency it's on and which type of encryption it's using. And please tell me how to access a proper file system on an iOS device, so I can choose for myself which files I am "allowed" to download and where to put them.
IOS is way too simplistic for any kind of serious usage.
Slashdot Mirror
Your error was that you replaced your monitors with new ones of lesser vertical pixel count. You should have bought 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 instead. Never skimp on monitors, keyboards and mice. They will generally outlast every other PC component you buy.
Go 2560x1440, then. A 27" monitor with that resolution is right around 108dpi, which is pretty darn nice. Or go for something like Dell's 4K/UHD 27", that's 163dpi. or 140dpi if you go for a 31.5" model.
But who would want a 1600x1200 monitor when a 1920x1200 or even 2560x1440 monitor is cheaper these days?
And for pretty much all work except video and movie editing, 4:3 is better.
Why? You can most likely get a 16:9 format monitor with more vertical resolution than your old 4:3 monitor, and you'll be getting more horizontal space to boot. It's almost like having a dual-monitor setup in one monitor, what's not to like?
Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) for HP servers was a godsend back when I managed a reasonably-sized server farm. Being able to completely re-install a whole rack of servers remotely was extremely nice when the server room was a 15 minute drive away and someone else had the IT department car.
Yeah, but who wants a monitor that's only 960 pixels wide? That's the problem with 16:9. It's too wide, but at the same time not wide enough. If it was wider, you could replace a dual 4:3 or 5:4 set up with one screen and lose the bezel running down the middle. But it's not, so you end with two 16:9 screens which is just stupidly wide. The 21:9 screens are more interesting than the 16:9 screens to me.
It's no problem with 2560x1440, it's wide enough to fit 2 full-size documents with room to spare for toolbars etc. on a single monitor. Or putting it in other terms, I have two 1280x1400 monitors side by side with no annoying bezel in the middle.
1920x1080 is bargain bin crap for anything other than laptops these days. 2560x1440 is standard and 3840x2160 (or 2x 1920x2160, better than two of these Eizo monitors) is quickly gaining ground.
"1440p" is not a computer monitor resolution. It could be 1600x1440 (16:9) or 2304x1440 (16:10) or 1920x1440 (4:3) or 1800x1440 (5:4), or with the 1:1 aspect ratio from this article's focus, it could be 1440x1440. Notice how 16:9 is the crappiest aspect of all of those. It's not useful like the 1:1 ratio, and it's fewer pixels than any of the others.
Errr no, that would actually be 2560x1440, the best aspect ratio of those possible options, with the most overall screen space. I should know, I have a 27" monitor with that resolution.
This 1:1 monitor from Eizo will only ever be relevant if it's significantly cheaper than a comparable-quality 4K/UHD monitor. 2160 versus 1920 vertical pixels, with a hell of a lot more horizontal space as a bonus.
Just sayin'.
Finally get back some of the vertical space lost when every laptop and desktop downgraded to "HD".
Only if this monitor is cheaper than a similar-quality 4K/UHD monitor. UHD buys you 2160 vertical pixels compared to 1920 for this monitor, plus a hell of a lot more horizontal space to boot.
Well, there may be good news for you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...
A 26.5" tallscreen 1920x1920 monitor sounds like just what you're wishing for :-)
You're arguing that you get less screen area for the same diagonal size, but while that's obviously true, it's a useless metric. It's like buying lightbulbs by wattage, when you should be buying them by lumens, color rendering index and color temperature.
Who cares that you have to get a 24" widescreen (1920x1200) to get the same vertical resolution as a 20" tallscreen (1600x1200)? You're still getting the vertical resolution you wanted, but with more space on the side, plus the 24" monitor is going to be significantly cheaper. Good high-resolution (2160 vertical pixels!) monitors are cheaper than ever, why complain about extra horizontal resolution?
You can install the PPAPI version of Flash on Chromium pretty easily, and it's obviously included in Chrome by default. So the only NPAPI plugin that's truly missing is Java, and good fucking riddance, I say.
This shouldn't surprise anyone who's actually used Facebook. It's a case study in JS abuse.
I never needed to scroll "for want of vertical space" on my 1920x1200 monitor, and I certainly don't need to on my current 2560x1440 monitor. I rarely even maximize windows vertically anymore, it simply isn't necessary.
Like I said: More than enough space for two full-size A4 pages with plenty of room to spare. Or for that matter a comfortably-sized browser window alongside two full-size 720p videos at once, if you're into that kind of thing. 2560x1440 will do a 4x720p video wall with no scaling, which can be quite useful for people working in visual media.
With monitor pricing the way it is currently, you would be crazy to insist on a 4:3 monitor, when you can get a 31.5" 4K (3840x2160) monitor that will handily replace a dual-monitor setup for much less than a single comparable 4:3 monitor, let alone two. And with no annoying bezels. I know we lost vertical resolution when everything went to 16:9 instead of 16:10 and 4:3, and things maxed out at 1920x1080 for a while. But now we're getting in back in spades, with more horizontal space as a bonus. You can get laptops these days with 1800 pixels of vertical resolution and crazy high DPI. What's not to like?
Widescreen monitors start to make sense once you cross a certain resolution threshold. A 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 monitor is brilliant for showing 2 or 3 pages at once side by side. I can comfortably fit two full-sized A4 pages on my monitor, with plenty of room to spare for toolbars etc., or have a web browser on one side of the screen while a full-size 720p video plays on the other.
As resolution increases, aspect ratio becomes less relevant.
Oh yeah, I really should have included that fact.
My general stance on the whole Christmas thing is "I'll stop taking Christ out of Christmas, if you stop forcing him into my Yule".
Oh boo whoo, your racist bullshit got called out and now you're mad. Go cry me a river.
My source is that I actually live in Denmark, right in the middle of the Greater Copenhagen Area where most of these supposed problems should be, and you know what? It's all bullshit, there are no such "widespread" and "endemic" problems.
I meet plenty of muslims (along with hindus, sikhs and plenty of other denominations) in my daily life, and you know what? They're all every bit as friendly, courteous and non-outwardly-religious as the average christian. And a bunch of my friends live in the "troubled" areas of Copenhagen (Mjølnerparken, Tingbjerg), so don't give me any crap about "only visiting the nice neighborhoods. The bad parts of places like Vesterbro still have a problem, but it's not related to muslims at all, it's mostly related to trafficked prostitutes and their pimps.
Of course there are a handful of street gangs, but we've got whites-only biker gangs that are every bit as bad or worse, so how is that an immigration problem? And of course there are some religious nutcases who like to condemn everyone else to hell, but there are just as many on the christian side of things, the only different is that they're a little less blunt in their exclamations, but their intentions are identical.
TL;DR: Unless you live here, don't make assumptions about what it's actually like.
Actually, let me refute the very first statement from that Gatestone Institute rant:
Muslim immigrants in a town near Copenhagen have forced the cancellation of traditional Christmas displays this year even while spending lavishly on the Islamic Eid celebration marking the end of Ramadan.
This is completely false. Muslim "immigrants" (in reality second- and third-generation Danes with a non-Danish heritage) did not force the cancellation of traditional Christmas displays.
What actually happened is that the purchase and installation of a Christmas tree was put to the vote in the owners association, and since no one stepped up to manage the purchase and installation (despite there being plenty of non-muslims in the area) and because it was a large expense, it was voted down. And it was just the Christmas tree, all of the other Christmas celebrations were held as usual.
Also, they did not "spend lavishly" on the Eid celebrations, they held them in the exact same way that they've done for years, at a very reasonable spending level, completely comparable to the spending level for their Christmas celebrations.
And your sources are:
- Russia Today, a Kremlin propaganda mouthpiece.
- Copenhagen Post, which despite being described as "neutral" is deeply tied to Jyllands-Posten which is well-known for its right-wing views.
- Gatestone Institute, a notorious neo-con and anti-muslim think tank.
TL;DR: You lose.
Denmark is a net energy exporter.
I'm willing to settle for a glossy display, but only if it's a high-res IPS display and no matte IPS option is available. TN panels can go sulk in a corner, they're worthless to look at.
I'm your type A slashdot computer geek and even *I* would prefer a chromebook over a windows laptop (typing this on Linux btw.)
I'm quite convinced that my next portable computer will either be an android tablet with an extra bluetooth keyboard or a chromebook - routing a chromebook with crouton and installing linux on it is quite easy, and 8 hrs battery time for 299 has a nice ring to it.
I feel the same way. I could upgrade my aging T42 (one of the best laptops ever, IMHO) to the modern equivalent (probably a T440 or X240), and I'd be willing to pay the premium price for another 10-12 year capable laptop. But a Chromebook would handle 99% of everything I ever use my laptop for and cost so much less. The Toshiba Chromebook 2 with the FHD IPS display looks like a nice candidate.
I had one of the original 7" display Eee 701s with the ~600MHz underclocked Celeron. Man, that thing was a turd. On the other hand, my dad is still using its replacement, a 1001HA with the 1.6GHz Atom and upgraded to 2GB RAM. It works brilliantly as an ultraportable diagnosis and firmware-flashing machine, and as a DMX controller for his amateur rock band.
I'm still using a T42 that I bought new ~11 years ago. Granted, I don't use for any heavy work, but with Arch Linux and XFCE, it handles basic everyday tasks just fine.
The battery is down to ~10-15 minutes of runtime by now, it's heavy, the screen resolution is low, some of the plastic has broken off one of the corners and I'm on the third (IIRC) mini-PCI WLAN adapter. Firefox/Chrome really doesn't like more than about 10 tabs open at any one time, multitasking in general is not advised.
But it plays 720p video (downloaded, not Youtube) just fine without dropping frames, surprisingly.
I've been considering an upgrade and I would be willing to buy another decently-specced Thinkpad in the hope that it would also last at least 10 years for everyday usage. But on the other hand, looking at my normal usage, why should I spend ~$2000 on the Thinkpad I want (FHD IPS display, SSD etc.) when a ~$200-300 Chromebook could handle all of it just fine, without leaving me completely hard-broken if I were to accidentally drop it or spill soda in the keyboard?
In Google's case, the "pound of flesh" is a little bit of privacy, for a whole heaping helping of convenience. A lot of people consider that tradeoff OK.
Please tell me where I can prioritize between different wifi SSIDs in iOS. Also, please tell me where I can see which 802.11 standard a given network is running, which frequency it's on and which type of encryption it's using. And please tell me how to access a proper file system on an iOS device, so I can choose for myself which files I am "allowed" to download and where to put them.
IOS is way too simplistic for any kind of serious usage.