[Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

litemotiv · 2013-05-09 22:36:31

anonymous_user wrote:

I just noticed Dell is now offering a 1600x900 screen on their Latitude 6430u Ultrabook. Its no 1080p but for a business class laptop, its far better than 768p.

1600x900 versus 1366x768 seems like a pretty insignificant improvement in pixel density, i wouldn't call that far better.

Also 16:9, a video/television aspect ratio, is considered nice to have on a "business class" laptop these days?

Last edited by litemotiv (2013-05-11 18:51:46)

theGunslinger · 2013-05-09 22:54:01

Ultrabooks are far from business class I'm afraid.

anonymous_user · 2013-05-09 23:48:37

@litemotiv - Its not about pixel density, I like having a higher resolution so I can see more at once. Also some months ago the Latitude 6430u Ultrabook didn't have the 900p screen upgrade.

ConnorBehan · 2013-05-10 00:28:47

litemotiv wrote:

Also 16:9, a video/television aspect ratio, is considered nice to have on a "business class" laptop these days?

Laptops get worse all the time. Matte screens used to be the most common, now it's gloss. 4:3 used to be the most common, now it's 16:9. And some laptops used to have MXM slots allowing video card upgrades but nothing of the sort exists now. Everyone I know who got a laptop newer than mine has since had it break.

WonderWoofy · 2013-05-10 00:33:42

Though I have 16:9, it is not what I would ahve preferred. But it is the only ratio that Thinkpads come in these days I think. Interestingly, I didn't mind the 16:10 that my MacBook had. Though being a MacBook 2,1 it was 1280x800, which wasn't amazing.

Edit: In the spirit of this thread... I used to have to update the rts5229 module everytime there was a kernel update, so that my SD card reader would work. Then it stopped compiling at 3.8.*... I realized there is a rtsx_pci module now that handles that shit! Yay!

Last edited by WonderWoofy (2013-05-10 00:35:34)

theGunslinger · 2013-05-10 00:41:44

ConnorBehan wrote:

litemotiv wrote:
Also 16:9, a video/television aspect ratio, is considered nice to have on a "business class" laptop these days?
Laptops get worse all the time. Matte screens used to be the most common, now it's gloss. 4:3 used to be the most common, now it's 16:9. And some laptops used to have MXM slots allowing video card upgrades but nothing of the sort exists now. Everyone I know who got a laptop newer than mine has since had it break.

This is one of my biggest grrr...'s in technology nowadays.

@anonymous user

You won't see more on the screen, if it's a 15 inch screen you will see fonts the exact same physical size as with a 768p just more dense and clear.

Last edited by theGunslinger (2013-05-10 00:45:54)

anonymous_user · 2013-05-10 01:00:22

@theGunslinger - Its not about font sizes. Higher resolution means more pixels so I can see more content at once before having to scroll. Just think about trying to view an image at 100% zoom or the number of lines in a text document.

Last edited by anonymous_user (2013-05-10 01:00:56)

litemotiv · 2013-05-10 08:42:28

I've only owned a 16:9 laptop for about a month, a 1600x900 Sony Vaio Z somewhere around 2009/10, but i sold it because the aspect ratio really didn't work for me. It felt so ridiculously unproductive, the only thing it was really good for was watching Youtube videos without letterboxing, but writing text or code was a drag. These days i have a laptop with a 2560x1700 3:2 screen and stuff actually makes sense again (although 4:3 would be even better i guess).

I implore you guys to just boycot 16:9 altogether and buy laptops with more useful ratios, it's the only way to stop this idiocy! 16:9 is nice for watching videos, not to get actual stuff done.

@anonymous_user: in the end the physical dimensions are really all that counts, if you only want to make things smaller you can just change the dpi or zoom out in your browser / program.

Awebb · 2013-05-10 08:49:01

The real issue with 16:9 is not the ratio itself, but the tendency of software to waste vertical space. There is the task bar on the bottom/top, there is the title bar of your window, then there is the "File..." Menu and the tools icon bar and on the bottom is another status bar. I'm not even starting with that ribbon interface stuff. Curious, how that ribbon thing came up AFTER everybody switched to widescreen.

litemotiv · 2013-05-10 09:04:43

Awebb wrote:

The real issue with 16:9 is not the ratio itself, but the tendency of software to waste vertical space. There is the task bar on the bottom/top, there is the title bar of your window, then there is the "File..." Menu and the tools icon bar and on the bottom is another status bar. I'm not even starting with that ribbon interface stuff. Curious, how that ribbon thing came up AFTER everybody switched to widescreen.

I wonder how well a UI paradigm would work where all all the meta-stuff would be in a column on the left/right instead of above/below...

theGunslinger · 2013-05-10 09:11:14

anonymous_user wrote:

@theGunslinger - Its not about font sizes. Higher resolution means more pixels so I can see more content at once before having to scroll. Just think about trying to view an image at 100% zoom or the number of lines in a text document.

I don't think you get what I'm telling you. If you have the same pixel font size on your old and new screen, yes you will get more lines on screen, because your text is PHYSICALLY smaller due to pixel density. Just lower the pixel font size on your old screen for a bit, and you will have the same amount of lines on your old screen. If it's the same 15'6 inch screen you can't put more text on it without making it smaller regardless of resolution.

SquidGuy · 2013-05-10 09:12:53

As far as screen ratios, I miss the older Thinkpads. I still have my T60 and T43 and love them like they were my own children. The 43 is what Netbooks should have been trying to recreate. That little guy and the 14.0" SXGA screen were just about perfect for actually carrying and using.

The little things that make me go "ooh. nice?" I recently started using wanderlust for emacs. That's just a really easy way to drag e-mails into my regular workflow. I think there was an audible "oohhh" when I got it to connect to my mail for the first time.

litemotiv · 2013-05-10 09:20:57

SquidGuy wrote:

As far as screen ratios, I miss the older Thinkpads. I still have my T60 and T43 and love them like they were my own children. The 43 is what Netbooks should have been trying to recreate. That little guy and the 14.0" SXGA screen were just about perfect for actually carrying and using.

Yeah this old Thinkpad with a 1280x1024 5:4 screen really makes me go 'ooh, nice'.

Awebb · 2013-05-10 09:55:33

litemotiv wrote:

Awebb wrote:
The real issue with 16:9 is not the ratio itself, but the tendency of software to waste vertical space. There is the task bar on the bottom/top, there is the title bar of your window, then there is the "File..." Menu and the tools icon bar and on the bottom is another status bar. I'm not even starting with that ribbon interface stuff. Curious, how that ribbon thing came up AFTER everybody switched to widescreen.
I wonder how well a UI paradigm would work where all all the meta-stuff would be in a column on the left/right instead of above/below...

Pretty well. Some software like Openoffice and the GIMP can be costumized to death, so I did exactly this. It's not that I actually use either program very often, but it worked fine. It's not very gnome friendly, as they wish to get rid of icons at some point, but it's definitly awebbable.

I actually grew into prefering widescreen. I use two 22" screensl, both on table mount arms with two hinges and a pivot joint. Reading letter or A4 sized papers full screen was never better. It's different on the netbook though, but it's only 1024x600 anyway, so no valid statement can be made here.

litemotiv · 2013-05-10 10:32:08

Awebb wrote:

litemotiv wrote:
I wonder how well a UI paradigm would work where all all the meta-stuff would be in a column on the left/right instead of above/below...
Pretty well. Some software like Openoffice and the GIMP can be costumized to death, so I did exactly this. It's not that I actually use either program very often, but it worked fine. It's not very gnome friendly, as they wish to get rid of icons at some point, but it's definitly awebbable.

But it still takes considerable effort to make it useful, right? Any vertical screen estate is instantly usable in any scenario, so that still sounds more efficient.

I actually grew into prefering widescreen. I use two 22" screensl, both on table mount arms with two hinges and a pivot joint. Reading letter or A4 sized papers full screen was never better. It's different on the netbook though, but it's only 1024x600 anyway, so no valid statement can be made here.

Yes on big screens things work a bit differently since you have a lot of physical space either way, the discussion primarily targets laptops. By the way i still prefer to use any desktop monitor in portrait mode personally.

Awebb · 2013-05-10 10:47:18

litemotiv wrote:

Awebb wrote:
litemotiv wrote:
I wonder how well a UI paradigm would work where all all the meta-stuff would be in a column on the left/right instead of above/below...
Pretty well. Some software like Openoffice and the GIMP can be costumized to death, so I did exactly this. It's not that I actually use either program very often, but it worked fine. It's not very gnome friendly, as they wish to get rid of icons at some point, but it's definitly awebbable.
But it still takes considerable effort to make it useful, right? Any vertical screen estate is instantly usable in any scenario, so that still sounds more efficient.

Yes, it is some extra effort, but since we spoke about a UI paradigm, I would assume, that more than the two of us might use it, so shortcuts might be implemented in the software/widget kits. Currently, most of my GUI applications could be handled by a single Qt style with vertical elements. I think Qt is even capable of putting the title bar on the sides instead of the top or bottom.

Now I'm tempted to do some research.

lahwaacz · 2013-05-10 12:19:43

litemotiv wrote:

SquidGuy wrote:
As far as screen ratios, I miss the older Thinkpads. I still have my T60 and T43 and love them like they were my own children. The 43 is what Netbooks should have been trying to recreate. That little guy and the 14.0" SXGA screen were just about perfect for actually carrying and using.
Yeah this old Thinkpad with a 1280x1024 5:4 screen really makes me go 'ooh, nice'.
http://i.imm.io/15pKS.jpeg

The hardware seems nice, but the software makes me go grrr...

Regarding the screen aspect ratio: I really like my laptop's 1440x900 screen, the only flaw is that it's glossy. But not so long ago I've got 22" 1920x1080 screen (it's even matte) and it's even better - I've got needed vertical space, and horizontal space can be efficiently used in vertically split layout.

jakobcreutzfeldt · 2013-05-10 12:24:33

My laptop's 1920x1080 resolution makes me go "ooh, nice". I have basically the same vertical space as that 1280x1024 screen pictured (ok a few more pixels) but with the wider horizontal dimension, I can easily split the screen and have windows side-by-side. I don't see what all the fuss is about.

Last edited by jakobcreutzfeldt (2013-05-10 12:24:50)

SquidGuy · 2013-05-10 12:57:40

jakobcreutzfeldt wrote:

I don't see what all the fuss is about.

In my case, it's partially an aesthetics thing. For the physical size of the laptop, I honestly don't think anything competes with the t43. On the other hand, if you're using a tiler, tmux, or screen (or some other fun way to split things up), then of course the larger screens work great...they're just normally attached to larger notebooks.

On a desktop...these points are irrelevant. Big screen = Good. As a note, though...this is entirely my opinion. The law of the instrument applies.

Onyros · 2013-05-10 14:15:16

litemotiv wrote:

SquidGuy wrote:
As far as screen ratios, I miss the older Thinkpads. I still have my T60 and T43 and love them like they were my own children. The 43 is what Netbooks should have been trying to recreate. That little guy and the 14.0" SXGA screen were just about perfect for actually carrying and using.
Yeah this old Thinkpad with a 1280x1024 5:4 screen really makes me go 'ooh, nice'.
http://i.imm.io/15pKS.jpeg

I love Thinkpads. I've had a T23, an X31 and went on a hiatus for a couple of years until I got an X200s (1440x900 on 12 inch screen was beautiful). Now I have a very lackluster screen - 12.5 inches 1366x768 - on the X220. It's leaps and bounds faster but I miss that good old X200s screen (and silence).

The X200s was the last without a touchpad, too. With that great matte screen, overall lightness and weight it was probably the best laptop I've ever had. I loved that 1440x900 definition, it was an absolute "Oh, nice!" sensation every time I used it. I won't upgrade to the X230 because they made the incredible mistake of replacing the epic Thinkpad keyboard for chiclet keys, so this will be my last Thinkpad...

BTW, on the whole landscape vs portrait mode thing: I also have a Nexus 7 and I never, ever use it in portrait mode. Even while reading ebooks (Aldiko Reader), I always use it in landscape mode. I really prefer using the whole width of the screen rather than the height. Probably strange, but it's something I got used to with time.

Last edited by Onyros (2013-05-10 14:22:06)

Awebb · 2013-05-10 14:43:30

Onyros wrote:

BTW, on the whole landscape vs portrait mode thing: I also have a Nexus 7 and I never, ever use it in portrait mode. Even while reading ebooks (Aldiko Reader), I always use it in landscape mode. I really prefer using the whole width of the screen rather than the height. Probably strange, but it's something I got used to with time.

The strongest pro-widescreen argument: Your field of view is significantly wider than it is high. I also mostly use the 7" tablet the landscape-way, as most web pages are either optimized for small phone screens or big desktops. Okay, the truth is, most web pages are not optimized at all.

Now that I think about it, "holding it the landscape way" sounds like a tantric excercise.

EDIT: Lazy contractions are bad.

Last edited by Awebb (2013-05-10 14:44:29)

Xyne · 2013-05-10 14:52:35

split from https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php … 1#p1270561

anonymous_user · 2013-05-10 15:20:57

theGunslinger wrote:

I don't think you get what I'm telling you. If you have the same pixel font size on your old and new screen, yes you will get more lines on screen, because your text is PHYSICALLY smaller due to pixel density. Just lower the pixel font size on your old screen for a bit, and you will have the same amount of lines on your old screen. If it's the same 15'6 inch screen you can't put more text on it without making it smaller regardless of resolution.

Ok I got your point. So in your opinion, is getting a high resolution displays on a laptop ever worth it? 1920x1080? 2560x1700? 2880x1800? 4096x2160?

Or is it better to stay with 1366*768 and just rely on decreasing fonts sizes and changing DPI?

Awebb · 2013-05-10 15:27:04

anonymous_user wrote:

Or is it better to stay with 1366*768 and just rely on decreasing fonts sizes and changing DPI?

theGunslinger obviously never had the chance to compare the quality first hand. i was also very sceptic at first.

lahwaacz · 2013-05-10 17:26:36

anonymous_user wrote:

theGunslinger wrote:
I don't think you get what I'm telling you. If you have the same pixel font size on your old and new screen, yes you will get more lines on screen, because your text is PHYSICALLY smaller due to pixel density. Just lower the pixel font size on your old screen for a bit, and you will have the same amount of lines on your old screen. If it's the same 15'6 inch screen you can't put more text on it without making it smaller regardless of resolution.
Ok I got your point. So in your opinion, is getting a high resolution displays on a laptop ever worth it? 1920x1080? 2560x1700? 2880x1800? 4096x2160?
Or is it better to stay with 1366*768 and just rely on decreasing fonts sizes and changing DPI?

Actually, I think changing DPI is needed for those ultra-high resolutions, 10pt font will be unreadable on 4096x2160... Also GPU performance requirements might be significant.

Arch Linux

#1 2013-05-09 22:36:31

[Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#2 2013-05-09 22:54:01

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#3 2013-05-09 23:48:37

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#4 2013-05-10 00:28:47

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#5 2013-05-10 00:33:42

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#6 2013-05-10 00:41:44

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#7 2013-05-10 01:00:22

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#8 2013-05-10 08:42:28

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#9 2013-05-10 08:49:01

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#10 2013-05-10 09:04:43

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#11 2013-05-10 09:11:14

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#12 2013-05-10 09:12:53

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#13 2013-05-10 09:20:57

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#14 2013-05-10 09:55:33

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#15 2013-05-10 10:32:08

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#16 2013-05-10 10:47:18

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#17 2013-05-10 12:19:43

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#18 2013-05-10 12:24:33

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#19 2013-05-10 12:57:40

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#20 2013-05-10 14:15:16

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#21 2013-05-10 14:43:30

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#22 2013-05-10 14:52:35

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#23 2013-05-10 15:20:57

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#24 2013-05-10 15:27:04

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

#25 2013-05-10 17:26:36

Re: [Solved] ooh, nice, an off-topic conversation about pixels

Board footer