Or the properly formated version of my above post...
I think I'll have to argue this point also. You are comparing widths... which is what has added on to. Actually both width and height have changed slightly but width is the more drastic.
So a 1280x800 should be compared to a 1024x768. Looking at it that way you are getting about 32 more vertical pixels and 256 horizontal.
With laptops you also get the advantage of the wide screen matching up slightly better with the keyboard width. So with a nearly full width keyboard you don't have 3 extra inches of laptop to lug around. For simple web browsing it shouldn't matter, because most web pages extend below both wide and standard screens. So scrolling is inevitable. Besides you can always fill the extra width with a Vista or Google sidebar if you don't like the wide feel. So instead of empty air beside your workspace area you get dynamic information that can be updated. Any price differences should be expected since we are adding more pixels.
But besides that, the supply and demand issue always has to be considered when introducing new technology.
I'm sure in reality all of this is simply like an acquired taste. If we had started out with wide screen back in the 80's and now were moving to 4:3 ratio, there would be people championing the extra vertical space and those wanting to stay with what they were used to.
I think I'll have to argue this point also. You are comparing widths which is what has added on to. Actually both width and height have changed slightly but width is the more drastic.
So a 1280x800 should be compared to a 1024x768. Looking at it that way you are getting about 32 more vertical pixels and 256 horizontal.
800x480 = 640x480
1280x800 = 1024x768
1400x900 = ???
1680x1050 = 1280x1024
1920x1200 = 1600x1200
With laptops you also get the advantage of the wide screen matching up slightly better with the keyboard width. So with a nearly full width keyboard you don't have 3 extra inches of laptop to lug around. For simple web browsing it should matter, because most web pages extende below wide or standard screens. So scrolling is inevitable. Besides you can always fill the extra width with a Vista or Google sidebar if you don't like the wide feel. So instead of empty air beside your workspace area you get dynamic information that can be updated.
Any price differences should be expected since we are adding more pixels. But besides that, the supply and demand issue always has to be considered when introducing new technology.
I'm sure in reality all of this is simply like an aquired taste. If we had started out with wide screen back in the 80's and now were moving to 4:3 ratio, there would be people championing the extra vertical space and those wanting to stay with what they were used to.
Hmmm. Somehow I thought I had logged in on that last post.....
Or perhaps that giant asteroid cracked the Earth's crust in enough places that the land basically flattened out or sunk beneath the ocean. And therefore the water covered the entire face of the earth (within about 40 days maybe0. Then over the next 300 something days the plates shifted around and eventually reformed mountains and ravines, giving us this story of Noah and a global flood that seems to pervade just about every culture around the world.
Besides that, the evaporative cooling from the water run-off as the plates pushed up would likely cause some really nice ice cold temperatures that might help explain our polar ice caps.
However, even if Noah did save two baby dinosaurs for each available dinosaur species, the harsher post asteroid/flood climates and smaller food quantities could make it difficult to survive long term for the really large animals. And if those hungry dinosaurs decided to start eating humans, then I'm sure the humans would opt to eliminate that particular creature.
It always amuses me to see something like this get reported as certain. Inevitably someone will come out next year and make it older or younger.
It's like being a deserted island for one year. Then seeing a large carved boulder and saying "we can be certain that the bolder has been here for around 500 years by calculating the amount of erosion around it and the fact that it only rained once this past year". Then of course next year it rains 50 times, making the calculations just a little bit off.
Not the ol' backwards compatibility excuse again?
on
IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test
·
· Score: 1
Why does Microsoft keep bringing up this 'backwards compatibility" comment to justify their lack of standards support. If they would just develop a standards complaint browser then all these websites that run on Firefox, Safari, etc., should run just fine.
If it's the problem of a site seeing IE8 and then running IE6 code hacks, then they could just rename the whole browser to something cool like Expanse 1.0 or something (going along with the "Vista" concept there).
Surely they aren't saying that there are a bunch of sites compatible with only IE and nothing else? If such a thing does exist it needs to die and be rebuilt.
Doesn't startrek.com contain info for all the movies also? Makes sense to put a splash image for the new one coming out with a link to the full flash site in a sub page. But anyway.
I like startrek.com and hope they keep the site operational. I especially have enjoyed the recent before/after effects photos on the new Star Trek Remastered episodes.
But, I can't see the justification to having such a large full time staff since there's not full time shows being produced. If anything they should be able to keep the site mostly up to date using some of the normal CBS web developers. I doubt it would take a single guy more than one day a week to make adequate updates.
"...updates seem to come pretty far apart and scattershot"
Must be all those massages and conferences that their employees attend. Everyone spends half their time brain storming rather than implementing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing if the company can afford it. It's better than Microsoft's copy everyone else mentality.
And as for the concept of locking in your customers, that's one reason I use gmail instead of hotmail/live/msn. I've setup a few new small company websites where the owners were using personal accounts under hotmail, gmail or some local ISP. But with hotmail you can't forward the mail out to a new company email address. Most other systems don't have this restriction. So you can either forward or setup a POP checker to pull it all together.
So it's actually Google's lack of strong-hold policy that keeps me with them as much as possible and causes me to avoid Microsoft whenever possible.
I think weighing the facts to determine an answer depends on a key phrase in this post, which is that these laptops would be for "the graphic arts department" with the goal being to get rid of the computer labs.
As a fellow graphic arts major myself, I can say that for me, one of the big draws to a college was being able to have the biggest and best hardware that money could buy. Being able to learn on state of the art hardware so that in 4 years after graduation I would be working on approximately equivelent. Or in some cases better 4 year old state of the art (ILM, Pixar, etc)
Unless you are just taking notes and learning basic Photoshop, then you are going to want laptops in the $3,000 range. Print designs bigger than a 5x7" image/layout is going to need some heavy specs. Otherwise you'll hit walls waiting for filters, memory swapping, or wasted time playing with toolbar layouts on a small screen.
And if we are talking multimedia instead of just print, then you have render farms, RAID storage, fast 3D hardware, and graphic tablets. And that doesn't even touch on software which is like painting with a single paint brush. Most high end studios use dozens of applications depending on which works faster for a particular effect.
So I guess it depends on whether these graduates are making art with their hands or with their computers. And then the quality of degree you want to offer. Does this degree need to get them into ILM/Pixar type companies or just a local photography studio.
Slashdot Mirror
Or the properly formated version of my above post...
... which is what has added on to. Actually both width and height have changed slightly but width is the more drastic.
I think I'll have to argue this point also. You are comparing widths
So a 1280x800 should be compared to a 1024x768. Looking at it that way you are getting about 32 more vertical pixels and 256 horizontal.
800x480 = 640x480
1280x800 = 1024x768
1400x900 = ???
1680x1050 = 1280x1024
1920x1200 = 1600x1200
With laptops you also get the advantage of the wide screen matching up slightly better with the keyboard width. So with a nearly full width keyboard you don't have 3 extra inches of laptop to lug around. For simple web browsing it shouldn't matter, because most web pages extend below both wide and standard screens. So scrolling is inevitable. Besides you can always fill the extra width with a Vista or Google sidebar if you don't like the wide feel. So instead of empty air beside your workspace area you get dynamic information that can be updated. Any price differences should be expected since we are adding more pixels.
But besides that, the supply and demand issue always has to be considered when introducing new technology.
I'm sure in reality all of this is simply like an acquired taste. If we had started out with wide screen back in the 80's and now were moving to 4:3 ratio, there would be people championing the extra vertical space and those wanting to stay with what they were used to.
I think I'll have to argue this point also. You are comparing widths which is what has added on to. Actually both width and height have changed slightly but width is the more drastic. So a 1280x800 should be compared to a 1024x768. Looking at it that way you are getting about 32 more vertical pixels and 256 horizontal. 800x480 = 640x480 1280x800 = 1024x768 1400x900 = ??? 1680x1050 = 1280x1024 1920x1200 = 1600x1200 With laptops you also get the advantage of the wide screen matching up slightly better with the keyboard width. So with a nearly full width keyboard you don't have 3 extra inches of laptop to lug around. For simple web browsing it should matter, because most web pages extende below wide or standard screens. So scrolling is inevitable. Besides you can always fill the extra width with a Vista or Google sidebar if you don't like the wide feel. So instead of empty air beside your workspace area you get dynamic information that can be updated. Any price differences should be expected since we are adding more pixels. But besides that, the supply and demand issue always has to be considered when introducing new technology. I'm sure in reality all of this is simply like an aquired taste. If we had started out with wide screen back in the 80's and now were moving to 4:3 ratio, there would be people championing the extra vertical space and those wanting to stay with what they were used to.
Hmmm. Somehow I thought I had logged in on that last post.....
Or perhaps that giant asteroid cracked the Earth's crust in enough places that the land basically flattened out or sunk beneath the ocean. And therefore the water covered the entire face of the earth (within about 40 days maybe0. Then over the next 300 something days the plates shifted around and eventually reformed mountains and ravines, giving us this story of Noah and a global flood that seems to pervade just about every culture around the world.
Besides that, the evaporative cooling from the water run-off as the plates pushed up would likely cause some really nice ice cold temperatures that might help explain our polar ice caps.
However, even if Noah did save two baby dinosaurs for each available dinosaur species, the harsher post asteroid/flood climates and smaller food quantities could make it difficult to survive long term for the really large animals. And if those hungry dinosaurs decided to start eating humans, then I'm sure the humans would opt to eliminate that particular creature.
It always amuses me to see something like this get reported as certain. Inevitably someone will come out next year and make it older or younger. It's like being a deserted island for one year. Then seeing a large carved boulder and saying "we can be certain that the bolder has been here for around 500 years by calculating the amount of erosion around it and the fact that it only rained once this past year". Then of course next year it rains 50 times, making the calculations just a little bit off.
Why does Microsoft keep bringing up this 'backwards compatibility" comment to justify their lack of standards support. If they would just develop a standards complaint browser then all these websites that run on Firefox, Safari, etc., should run just fine. If it's the problem of a site seeing IE8 and then running IE6 code hacks, then they could just rename the whole browser to something cool like Expanse 1.0 or something (going along with the "Vista" concept there). Surely they aren't saying that there are a bunch of sites compatible with only IE and nothing else? If such a thing does exist it needs to die and be rebuilt.
Doesn't startrek.com contain info for all the movies also? Makes sense to put a splash image for the new one coming out with a link to the full flash site in a sub page. But anyway. I like startrek.com and hope they keep the site operational. I especially have enjoyed the recent before/after effects photos on the new Star Trek Remastered episodes. But, I can't see the justification to having such a large full time staff since there's not full time shows being produced. If anything they should be able to keep the site mostly up to date using some of the normal CBS web developers. I doubt it would take a single guy more than one day a week to make adequate updates.
"...updates seem to come pretty far apart and scattershot" Must be all those massages and conferences that their employees attend. Everyone spends half their time brain storming rather than implementing. I'm not saying that's a bad thing if the company can afford it. It's better than Microsoft's copy everyone else mentality. And as for the concept of locking in your customers, that's one reason I use gmail instead of hotmail/live/msn. I've setup a few new small company websites where the owners were using personal accounts under hotmail, gmail or some local ISP. But with hotmail you can't forward the mail out to a new company email address. Most other systems don't have this restriction. So you can either forward or setup a POP checker to pull it all together. So it's actually Google's lack of strong-hold policy that keeps me with them as much as possible and causes me to avoid Microsoft whenever possible.
Actually this company seems pretty cheap. www.yourmusic.com Considerably beats the price of iTunes on most music. However, they don't have everything.
I think weighing the facts to determine an answer depends on a key phrase in this post, which is that these laptops would be for "the graphic arts department" with the goal being to get rid of the computer labs. As a fellow graphic arts major myself, I can say that for me, one of the big draws to a college was being able to have the biggest and best hardware that money could buy. Being able to learn on state of the art hardware so that in 4 years after graduation I would be working on approximately equivelent. Or in some cases better 4 year old state of the art (ILM, Pixar, etc) Unless you are just taking notes and learning basic Photoshop, then you are going to want laptops in the $3,000 range. Print designs bigger than a 5x7" image/layout is going to need some heavy specs. Otherwise you'll hit walls waiting for filters, memory swapping, or wasted time playing with toolbar layouts on a small screen. And if we are talking multimedia instead of just print, then you have render farms, RAID storage, fast 3D hardware, and graphic tablets. And that doesn't even touch on software which is like painting with a single paint brush. Most high end studios use dozens of applications depending on which works faster for a particular effect. So I guess it depends on whether these graduates are making art with their hands or with their computers. And then the quality of degree you want to offer. Does this degree need to get them into ILM/Pixar type companies or just a local photography studio.