If you check a laptop, there is a significant chance it's not making it to your destination in working order, or even at all. Baggage handlers are not gentle, and theft is rampant. It's not like terrorism where people are all worked up over something that has an almost zero chance of occurring.
What kind of car do you have? I've never seen one that works in that manner, unless you have a hybrid and your calling the gasoline engine the alternator.
I've seen a few die of the capacitor plague. It's usually a bitch to get the case open, but once you get to the board it's usually an easy fix and I've gotten some free LCDs out of it. Thre is also burn-in. Granted, it's not permanent, but eventually the monitor will get bad enough that anytime something static is displayed for more than an hour or two it will burn-in and you have to leave the screen off for a couple of days for it to go away. Occasionally the inverter board will go bad - usually it's a toss-up here whether it's worth trying to repair those.
As far as I can tell, all the monitors that used that oddball resolution are now out of production. Maybe not too late to find some new-old stock somewhere though.
16:10 seems to be a relatively short fad in the LCD monitor world. Most desktop monitors being sold nowadays are 16:9 panels.
Still, I don't completely buy the HDTV thing. 1920x1080 is common for 22-27" monitors, but most HDTVs in that size are only 720p. I have yet to see a HDTV that uses the 1600x900 panels either.
Wow, a whopping 80 DPI you got there. We have one of those at work. It's actually annoying to use because even with it pushed all the way back I have to turn my head to see things and it's not really any more useful than my 20" 1600x1200 screen. 1920x1200 should be, at the largest, a 22" screen if you ask me.
Actually, it's about impossible to find 4:3 monitors below 20" anymore. You can find 20 or 21" 1600x1200 screens, and that's about it. The 17 or 19" 1280x1024 screens are 5:4, not 4:3. On the other hand, the few 4:3 20" screens left in production all seem to be S-IPS panels, so while you'll pay a bit more for them, you'll get an all-around better screen.
This probably won't get you more vertical pixels, as I've found very few LCDs that allow you to use a resolution higher than the native resolution of the panel. The rescaling on the few that did allow it looked pretty much as terrible as you might expect.
You might also consider that most (all?) of the 30" displays are S-IPS panels. Whereas the cheap 27" displays that cost less than half of the cost of the 30" display are almost certainly TN panels. Though if you are willing to get a 24" display with the same resolution (which is what I'd prefer anyway), there are some S-IPS 24" 1920x1200 panels out there in the $400-$500 range.
Also, they tend to be professional quality monitors with the professional quality price tag.
I just wish that someone would start taking laptop panels and putting them in a plastic case with a power supply and a DVI port. Seriously, how hard can that be?
Do you have any pointers? To get more than 1000 vertical pixels, you need to either get a bulky 17" laptop, or pick from the very limited selection of 15.5-15.6" laptops. Used to be that you could get a 14" 1400x1050 laptop or a 15" 1600x1200 laptop, but those days are gone. If you want 1200 vertical pixels, your selection is extremely limited, as most everything maxes out at 1920x1080 nowadays.
Windows XP came out in August 2001. Most PCs sold to home users back in 2000 and early 2001 would have Windows ME - you'd only find 2000 on PCs sold to businesses. Many people downgraded ME back to 98, so it's not uncommon. Also, back then many power users preferred Windows 98 to 2000/XP because it was faster, games ran better, and it was easier to pirate. Many people resisted upgrading to XP to around 2003 or so.
The thing with the broken window "principle" is that even if it works, you're still ignoring opportunity costs. They'd be better off putting the money towards projects like replacing century-old water and steam pipes than using it replace functional street signs.
Have you tried listening to some of these overly compressed CDs? It can be a chore to sit through the whole thing at once as the music is not pleasant to listen to, even if you otherwise like the artist. I can see how that can translate to "there are only one or two good songs" if you turn the CD off halfway through because you're tired of listening to it.
On the other hand, if something is reasonably well produced I can generally listen to it for a while even if I don't particularly care for the music itself.
The problem that I have seen is that after the primaries, the politicians completely re-invent themselves for the general election. You just can't count on the promises they make during the primaries (or the general election), because they just say what they think they need to say to get votes.
All we've really managed to do is borrow against the future to ease a bit of short term pain. It may seem fine now, but in the long run we have to pay it all back, with interest.
Slashdot Mirror
If you check a laptop, there is a significant chance it's not making it to your destination in working order, or even at all. Baggage handlers are not gentle, and theft is rampant. It's not like terrorism where people are all worked up over something that has an almost zero chance of occurring.
I don't know about you, but I hate Adobe's bloated, buggy, poorly designed, insecure software worse than I hate Microsoft's.
Luckily, Paint.net is not owned by Microsoft...yet.
Actually, it's a lot like the most of the rest of the stimulus. Sure, it does do something, but it's inefficient.
What kind of car do you have? I've never seen one that works in that manner, unless you have a hybrid and your calling the gasoline engine the alternator.
I've seen a few die of the capacitor plague. It's usually a bitch to get the case open, but once you get to the board it's usually an easy fix and I've gotten some free LCDs out of it. Thre is also burn-in. Granted, it's not permanent, but eventually the monitor will get bad enough that anytime something static is displayed for more than an hour or two it will burn-in and you have to leave the screen off for a couple of days for it to go away. Occasionally the inverter board will go bad - usually it's a toss-up here whether it's worth trying to repair those.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824176053
Also, there is the Dell 2007FP for about the same price.
As far as I can tell, all the monitors that used that oddball resolution are now out of production. Maybe not too late to find some new-old stock somewhere though.
16:10 seems to be a relatively short fad in the LCD monitor world. Most desktop monitors being sold nowadays are 16:9 panels.
Still, I don't completely buy the HDTV thing. 1920x1080 is common for 22-27" monitors, but most HDTVs in that size are only 720p. I have yet to see a HDTV that uses the 1600x900 panels either.
Wow, a whopping 80 DPI you got there. We have one of those at work. It's actually annoying to use because even with it pushed all the way back I have to turn my head to see things and it's not really any more useful than my 20" 1600x1200 screen. 1920x1200 should be, at the largest, a 22" screen if you ask me.
The HP LP2065 and the Dell 2007FP are still in production and run about $400. There are also some Eizo and NEC panels, but those are expensive.
Actually, it's about impossible to find 4:3 monitors below 20" anymore. You can find 20 or 21" 1600x1200 screens, and that's about it. The 17 or 19" 1280x1024 screens are 5:4, not 4:3. On the other hand, the few 4:3 20" screens left in production all seem to be S-IPS panels, so while you'll pay a bit more for them, you'll get an all-around better screen.
This probably won't get you more vertical pixels, as I've found very few LCDs that allow you to use a resolution higher than the native resolution of the panel. The rescaling on the few that did allow it looked pretty much as terrible as you might expect.
You might also consider that most (all?) of the 30" displays are S-IPS panels. Whereas the cheap 27" displays that cost less than half of the cost of the 30" display are almost certainly TN panels. Though if you are willing to get a 24" display with the same resolution (which is what I'd prefer anyway), there are some S-IPS 24" 1920x1200 panels out there in the $400-$500 range.
They exist but are rare: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/706682-REG/Eizo_S2243WH_BK_FlexScan_S2243WH_BK_22_LCD.html
Also, they tend to be professional quality monitors with the professional quality price tag.
I just wish that someone would start taking laptop panels and putting them in a plastic case with a power supply and a DVI port. Seriously, how hard can that be?
Do you have any pointers? To get more than 1000 vertical pixels, you need to either get a bulky 17" laptop, or pick from the very limited selection of 15.5-15.6" laptops. Used to be that you could get a 14" 1400x1050 laptop or a 15" 1600x1200 laptop, but those days are gone. If you want 1200 vertical pixels, your selection is extremely limited, as most everything maxes out at 1920x1080 nowadays.
DNS over IPv6 in Windows XP is still broken. I seriously doubt that Microsoft plans to fix it.
Windows XP came out in August 2001. Most PCs sold to home users back in 2000 and early 2001 would have Windows ME - you'd only find 2000 on PCs sold to businesses. Many people downgraded ME back to 98, so it's not uncommon. Also, back then many power users preferred Windows 98 to 2000/XP because it was faster, games ran better, and it was easier to pirate. Many people resisted upgrading to XP to around 2003 or so.
The thing with the broken window "principle" is that even if it works, you're still ignoring opportunity costs. They'd be better off putting the money towards projects like replacing century-old water and steam pipes than using it replace functional street signs.
Actually, it does. You can either watch crap, or watch crap in HD.
Besides, your 50" HDTV has the same resolution as a 21" computer screen, which really doesn't impress me much.
Have you tried listening to some of these overly compressed CDs? It can be a chore to sit through the whole thing at once as the music is not pleasant to listen to, even if you otherwise like the artist. I can see how that can translate to "there are only one or two good songs" if you turn the CD off halfway through because you're tired of listening to it.
On the other hand, if something is reasonably well produced I can generally listen to it for a while even if I don't particularly care for the music itself.
The problem that I have seen is that after the primaries, the politicians completely re-invent themselves for the general election. You just can't count on the promises they make during the primaries (or the general election), because they just say what they think they need to say to get votes.
All we've really managed to do is borrow against the future to ease a bit of short term pain. It may seem fine now, but in the long run we have to pay it all back, with interest.
Where do you find savings accounts that pay 1.3% interest? Even a 1 year CD is something like 0.4% nowadays.
That's not all that much porn by 2010 standards.