Still, 1280x800 is still a better resolution than I have seen in any of the 10" netbooks. The standard 1024x600 is utter crap. 1280x800 is still a bit too low for my tastes, but I could probably live with it for a 10" screen.
A few years ago, you could get 1400x1050 12-14" screens, or 15" 1600x1200 screens, and even 15" 1920x1200 screens when the widescreen fad got started. IBM even had a 2048x1536 15" screen in a few models, which is still the uncontested king of laptop screens. In comparison, the selection nowadays is crap, and generally you have to buy a massive 17" laptop just to get "full HD" which is only 1920x1080.
I'd probably just carefully remove the camera/lens assembly from the TV, then solder in some new leads and extend the wires that run to the camera by a few meters. But that's just me.
You don't have to spend a lot of money, just hang around second-hand shops and garage sales. There are a lot of very good older models out there, and as a bonus most older models don't have pointless rearranged layouts and lack the useless multimedia buttons and if it's old enough the Windows key. There is the Model M, of course. The Dell Quietkey SK-1000REW (P2-era) is also a pretty decent keyboard, especially if you can find the rarer black version - it's what I use at work so I don't bother people with the Model M. Or just find something that has a good feel and buy it cheap and try it out.
I miss the distinctive hollow knocking sound my old ST-225 makes. Well, maybe not too much yet, as I still have the drive and it still works so I can still fire it up for whenever I'm feeling nostalgic.
Furthermore, in Windows double clicking the icon on the top left still closes the application, just like it did in Windows 3 before the [X] button was added. Well, in any properly designed application that follows Windows convention, unlike, say, Firefox. It still works in Vista/7 where there is no icon in some windows - just double click in the top left and it still closes. That's still the way I close many windows even today - I guess old habits die hard.
The problem with that is first, 1080 horizontal pixels on one screen can feel a bit limiting sometimes, and secondly unless you're running Gnome you lose your subpixel font rendering.
What are you talking about? The early viruses from the 1980's and 1990's were nasty. They'd trash your partition table and MBR, erase your files, corrupt your files, modify your executables, and render your floppies unreadable. Basically kiss your data goodbye. The ones nowadays are relatively benign. They can be nasty to get rid of if you try and go with the clean up route, but it's easy to back up your data files, nuke the installation, and start over.
Of course, with that said, I do remember a few viruses from back in the day that did silly stuff like play music from the beeper and were otherwise harmless.
Presumably "used up" in applications where it is generally not recovered.
Though I kind of doubt it - one of the big users of silver, film photography, is winding down. And there is lots of silver basically sitting around as bullion that will come out of the woodwork if the prices get high enough.
Cost is probably a big reason why the glossy screens are so terrible. CRTs, by their nature, are glossy screens, but any decent CRT from back in the day had an anti-reflective coating on it which helped a lot with glare issues. The glossy LCD screens today seem to be nothing more than a slab of glass which acts just like a mirror. I'm guessing they could put an anti-reflective coating on it if they wanted to, but by the time they did that it would cost as much as the matte screen would, so they don't bother.
At least with a desktop, you have the option of continuing to use the monitor you had 5 years ago. With laptops, you're kind of stuck with what's currently in fashion.
Because the build quality on those are terrible. Maybe a year is a bit low, but they'll be definitely showing their age badly by the time they are around 2.5-3 years old. They aren't like Thinkpads that'll still look and work perfect after 5 years.
I talked to someone who knows such things a few years ago - I forget who, but it might have been someone at Lenovo. They said that the screen mfgrs basically don't make them any more. Laptops are a tiny fraction of the TV market, and the screen makers primarily make TV screens. TV screens are all 16:9 (more or less). Basically to continue to provide 4:3 screens would require 'custom' production, at a huge cost.
I don't get this. I can see some overlap between computer monitors and TVs, but when was the last time a TV and a laptop shared a panel? For a laptop, the small TV panels don't have enough resolution, even by today's low standards. And the TV manufactures don't use laptop panels, probably because of cost, though I wouldn't mind a 1080p 17" TV myself. So if they are going to bang out a bunch of 1366x768 panels at 12" just for laptops, why can't they bang out some 1400x1050 14" screens too?
Then with two 16:9 monitors you're talking your entire desk and you still have crappy vertical resolution. I find 2 1600x1200 much more convenient than 2 1920x1080 monitors.
To me, the 1920x1200 at 24" is kind of low DPI, whereas the 1920x1080 monitors at 21.5" are more like it. Now, I know there are some 1920x1200 monitors at 22", but they are hella-expensive.
I just wish that companies would start taking the panels they put into laptops, stick them in a case with a power supply and DVI port, and call them monitors. Especially if they were the laptop panels from a few years back. I could make good use of some 1920x1200 17" or some 1600x1200 15" monitors.
After not winning the election, Bush started two wars - one was started on questionable and dubious justification, and the other was just simply wrong and started with blatant lies. Those two wars cost a significant number of active troops - both those who came home in body bags and those who came home with injuries too grave to fight anymore. That drove the numbers of active troops down significantly enough in comparison to what was needed that we had to start sending out reserve and national guard troops on war missions that had nothing to do with guarding out nation.
Eventually, something would need to be done to improve troops numbers. The two quickest ways to address that is to either welcome previously excluded troops (in part already done by increasing the maximum age of enlistment and the maximum allowable weight for a soldier) or drafting men into the armed forces. The second is a no-go, so they would accept a repeal of don't-ask-don't-tell on that justification.
There's a few assumptions you're making there. First, that repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" would increase overall enrollment numbers in the military, and more importantly, that Bush would believe that it would. For that reason, I'm still skeptical that Bush would have signed something called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010".
Eventually it would have had to happen. Under Bush it would have been authored as a "national security" measure instead and it would have been just as accepted.
I agree that if he repealed it, that it would be done in a manner like this, likely buried as much as possible in some big package "that had to be passed" as an excuse should he recieve too much flak about signing it.
The sad part is that some people believe there to be a meaningful difference between legislation they each approve.
Slashdot Mirror
Any version of Windows that can run IE7 can also run IE8.
Still, 1280x800 is still a better resolution than I have seen in any of the 10" netbooks. The standard 1024x600 is utter crap. 1280x800 is still a bit too low for my tastes, but I could probably live with it for a 10" screen.
A few years ago, you could get 1400x1050 12-14" screens, or 15" 1600x1200 screens, and even 15" 1920x1200 screens when the widescreen fad got started. IBM even had a 2048x1536 15" screen in a few models, which is still the uncontested king of laptop screens. In comparison, the selection nowadays is crap, and generally you have to buy a massive 17" laptop just to get "full HD" which is only 1920x1080.
I'd probably just carefully remove the camera/lens assembly from the TV, then solder in some new leads and extend the wires that run to the camera by a few meters. But that's just me.
That's great if you want to buy an old model off of eBay. But thanks to the DRM on the newer iPods it's pretty much either iTunes or bust.
You don't have to spend a lot of money, just hang around second-hand shops and garage sales. There are a lot of very good older models out there, and as a bonus most older models don't have pointless rearranged layouts and lack the useless multimedia buttons and if it's old enough the Windows key. There is the Model M, of course. The Dell Quietkey SK-1000REW (P2-era) is also a pretty decent keyboard, especially if you can find the rarer black version - it's what I use at work so I don't bother people with the Model M. Or just find something that has a good feel and buy it cheap and try it out.
Anyone who does more than a trivial amount of text entry is going to want a real keyboard. So I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon.
I miss the distinctive hollow knocking sound my old ST-225 makes. Well, maybe not too much yet, as I still have the drive and it still works so I can still fire it up for whenever I'm feeling nostalgic.
Furthermore, in Windows double clicking the icon on the top left still closes the application, just like it did in Windows 3 before the [X] button was added. Well, in any properly designed application that follows Windows convention, unlike, say, Firefox. It still works in Vista/7 where there is no icon in some windows - just double click in the top left and it still closes. That's still the way I close many windows even today - I guess old habits die hard.
Compaq was also the ones that innovated having half the space bar being a backspace key. I never did figure out what they were thinking with that one.
The problem with that is first, 1080 horizontal pixels on one screen can feel a bit limiting sometimes, and secondly unless you're running Gnome you lose your subpixel font rendering.
What are you talking about? The early viruses from the 1980's and 1990's were nasty. They'd trash your partition table and MBR, erase your files, corrupt your files, modify your executables, and render your floppies unreadable. Basically kiss your data goodbye. The ones nowadays are relatively benign. They can be nasty to get rid of if you try and go with the clean up route, but it's easy to back up your data files, nuke the installation, and start over.
Of course, with that said, I do remember a few viruses from back in the day that did silly stuff like play music from the beeper and were otherwise harmless.
It's because Vista and Windows 7 are actually pretty similar. Much like 2000 and XP, and Windows 95 and 98.
As far as I'm aware, VRGB mode for subpixel rendering is not available in Windows or OS X. Gnome supports it though.
Presumably "used up" in applications where it is generally not recovered.
Though I kind of doubt it - one of the big users of silver, film photography, is winding down. And there is lots of silver basically sitting around as bullion that will come out of the woodwork if the prices get high enough.
Cost is probably a big reason why the glossy screens are so terrible. CRTs, by their nature, are glossy screens, but any decent CRT from back in the day had an anti-reflective coating on it which helped a lot with glare issues. The glossy LCD screens today seem to be nothing more than a slab of glass which acts just like a mirror. I'm guessing they could put an anti-reflective coating on it if they wanted to, but by the time they did that it would cost as much as the matte screen would, so they don't bother.
At least with a desktop, you have the option of continuing to use the monitor you had 5 years ago. With laptops, you're kind of stuck with what's currently in fashion.
Because the build quality on those are terrible. Maybe a year is a bit low, but they'll be definitely showing their age badly by the time they are around 2.5-3 years old. They aren't like Thinkpads that'll still look and work perfect after 5 years.
I don't get this. I can see some overlap between computer monitors and TVs, but when was the last time a TV and a laptop shared a panel? For a laptop, the small TV panels don't have enough resolution, even by today's low standards. And the TV manufactures don't use laptop panels, probably because of cost, though I wouldn't mind a 1080p 17" TV myself. So if they are going to bang out a bunch of 1366x768 panels at 12" just for laptops, why can't they bang out some 1400x1050 14" screens too?
Then with two 16:9 monitors you're talking your entire desk and you still have crappy vertical resolution. I find 2 1600x1200 much more convenient than 2 1920x1080 monitors.
Well, for many people their only option is probably Best Buy and Wal-mart. And they generally only stock crappy machines I wouldn't buy.
Car analogy: What if the only car dealers in the state were Hyundai and Kia?
Are there any 2048x1080 displays? I though that was pretty much projector-only at this point.
To me, the 1920x1200 at 24" is kind of low DPI, whereas the 1920x1080 monitors at 21.5" are more like it. Now, I know there are some 1920x1200 monitors at 22", but they are hella-expensive.
I just wish that companies would start taking the panels they put into laptops, stick them in a case with a power supply and DVI port, and call them monitors. Especially if they were the laptop panels from a few years back. I could make good use of some 1920x1200 17" or some 1600x1200 15" monitors.
You also lose the subpixel rendering of fonts too. Ends up looking kind of nasty unless you turn that off.
There's a few assumptions you're making there. First, that repealing "Don't Ask Don't Tell" would increase overall enrollment numbers in the military, and more importantly, that Bush would believe that it would. For that reason, I'm still skeptical that Bush would have signed something called the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell Repeal Act of 2010".
I agree that if he repealed it, that it would be done in a manner like this, likely buried as much as possible in some big package "that had to be passed" as an excuse should he recieve too much flak about signing it.
Agreed.