Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV
The one really lousy trend I have seen is "shiny" LCD screens, whether on laptops or TV sets/monitors.
|
I second that. The first time I saw one of those glossy-coated LCD screens on a laptop computer in a store, I thought it was a rather attractive effect. However, after seeing a glossy-coated LCD screen on a laptop in actual *use* (rather than on display in a store), it didn't take long before I thought "What the heck were they thinking?? This coating reflects glare like crazy!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisW6ATV
(This message was entered on an IBM Thinkpad X31. Still from the "true blue" IBM days, but... Made in China.)
|
Nice machine-- I love the little X-series Thinkpads. OT, but I think the X31 is kinda in the "sweet spot" of the X-series if you're looking for a used/refurb X-series subnotebook right now in terms of bang for the buck. It's got USB 2.0 built-in (unlike its immediate predecesor, the X30, which had USB 1.1) and it could have a proper video adapter in it (I think the X40 and later X-series models could only be had with "vampire video" (integrated graphics). Yes, I realize that integrated graphics does generally improve battery life though, which I'm sure is why they switched over to that for the X-series.
As for why anyone would want a 4:3 screen rather than a 16:9:
I will admit that for most buyers, the typical 15.4" widescreen display provided on new notebooks these days (WXGA, which is 1280 x 800) offers a much more flexible/useful resolution than the typical 14.1" standard-ratio display that was previously commonplace (XGA, 1024 x 768). It really does-- a 15.4" WXGA screen gives you more "real estate" than a 14.1" XGA, and provides a noticably larger screen, but still has a similar dot pitch so fonts and such still look about the same size.
However, if you want to maximize your resolution and don't object to having smaller pixels (higher DPI), yet want a more compact notebook computer, it's hard to beat a 4:3 screen. A 14.1" SXGA+ display (1400 x 1280) beats a 15.4" WXGA hands-down both in vertical and horizontal resoluiton, yet results in a smaller and more portable unit. (Yes, I realize you can get widescreen notebooks with higher resolution screens than WXGA.) In general though, a 4:3 ratio screen on a notebook is more space efficient in that it keeps the largest dimension smaller than it would be on a 16:9 widescreen notebook computer having the same amount of total screen area.
Some other reasons for 4:3 ratio computer screens. Most of these will not be important for most people (perhaps not even *me*), however.
- Applications tend to be optimized for 4:3 displays.
- Most digital camera image sensors (and picture formats) are 4:3 ratio. (there's even a lens mount/sensor standard used by some digital SLR manufacturers called "Four-Thirds"...)
- Most traditional film camera/print formats are closer to 4:3 than to 16:9.
- MS-DOS applications and other legacy full-screen apps are designed for 4:3 displays, and will look distorted in 16:9. Likewise, native resolutions for those apps are standard 4:3 formats that should scale better on 4:3 LCD screens, even if the native resolution of the LCD is higher than what the application runs in.
Also, I dabble from time to time with 3D modeling, and for that I prefer working in a square (1:1) workspace anyway.
Overall, it's not that I object to widescreen computer displays, but I do think their introduction seemed like more of a sales gimmick to me than anything else ("See, it's *Widescreen*, so it's better!"), and prefer being able to have the choice.
Okay, I'll make sure my next post actually has something to do with TV.
