Do people really want to read off something like this?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Photos about Botany
Next: Large capacity storage
From: Ray Fischer on 9 Nov 2009 23:09 Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it >time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable, >less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's >sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly >horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not. > >http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/11/09/apple.tablet.jobs/index.html Rich likes to insist that everybody (but him, of course) waste all their money on buying the most expensive, most overbuilt products available. He is an idiot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Bob Larter on 10 Nov 2009 01:00 Rich wrote: > LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it > time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable, > less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's > sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly > horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not. I take it that you've never heard of E-Ink, flexible OLED panels, or any of the other display technologies that are being developed? Idiot. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dave Cohen on 14 Nov 2009 11:12 Nervous Nick wrote: > On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>> LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. Isn't it >>> time they started working on a better technology (flexible, portable, >>> less fragile?) to promote the replacement of books with? For God's >>> sakes, computer screens aren't even vertical, they're still mostly >>> horizontally oriented and books (in 99% of the cases) are not. >> ???? >> Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are vertical >> or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle). Horizontal screens are >> common only in tablet PCs and in special appliations, e.g. a monitor >> built into a table. >> And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have to >> bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much less >> ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost vertical >> screen. > > You stole the reply that I was too embarrassed to post. > > Nice one. > > -- > YOP... > In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I could be wrong and who cares. Barnes and Noble have just come out with what looks like to be an improvement on both the Kindle or the Sony model and I believe it will sell for around $200. Although I couldn't justify one for myself, these things could be great for certain users, particularly college students.
From: J. Clarke on 14 Nov 2009 12:11 Dave Cohen wrote: > Nervous Nick wrote: >> On Nov 9, 6:23 pm, J�rgen Exner <jurge...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> LCD's are dinosaurs. They've been around for over 30 years. >>>> Isn't it time they started working on a better technology >>>> (flexible, portable, less fragile?) to promote the replacement of >>>> books with? For God's sakes, computer screens aren't even >>>> vertical, they're still mostly horizontally oriented and books (in >>>> 99% of the cases) are not. >>> ???? >>> Almost all computer screen I've seen in the past 30 years are >>> vertical or near vertical (often at a 10-20 degree angle). >>> Horizontal screens are common only in tablet PCs and in special >>> appliations, e.g. a monitor built into a table. >>> And that's quite logical if you think about it. After all you have >>> to bend over to see a horizontal screen which in general is much >>> less ergonomic than looking straight ahead at a vertical or almost >>> vertical screen. >> >> You stole the reply that I was too embarrassed to post. >> >> Nice one. >> >> -- >> YOP... >> > In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to > Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I > could be wrong and who cares. > Barnes and Noble have just come out with what looks like to be an > improvement on both the Kindle or the Sony model and I believe it will > sell for around $200. Although I couldn't justify one for myself, > these things could be great for certain users, particularly college > students. Barnes and Noble wants 260. Personally for a student I can't see where it would be all that beneficial--no color (the Nook has a color screen but it's not the one you read books on--that's the same 16 gray scale as the Kindle), which makes color-coded highlighting not work, for openers. Also there's a shortage of textbooks for the things.
From: Gordon Freeman on 14 Nov 2009 15:26
Dave Cohen <user(a)example.net> wrote: > In fairness to Rich (and in general I'm not it favor of being fair to > Rich), I assumed he meant 'portrait' vs 'landscape' orientation, but I > could be wrong In that case I think he has a point. Personally I think the fact that manufacturers have moved over to exclusivly producing widescreen monitors is stupid, since what we tend to need is more height to fit in the plethora of toolbars, status bars, etc across the top/bottom of every program window, and to see our vertical format pictures better. Widescreen is ok for movies and that's about it. With my present 22" 4:3 monitor I have 1600x1200 pixels, if I bought one of the same size now it would be 1680 x 1050 pixels which loses me 150 pixels in height for the dubious benefit of 80 extra on the width. So vertical pictures will show even smaller than before. What I'd rather have is a square monitor 1600x1600, this would take up no more desk space, since extra height is free as far as space use is concerned, yet it would show all pictures equally sized. For document viewing too, vertical format is better because you can see more of the document in a usable way. More width does not help beyond a certain point because line length becomes excessive so it's harder to read (which is why newspapers and magazines are divided into columns because the pages are too wide for comfortable reading otherwise). Already I typically have browsers and word processor windows at only half screen width, whilst I do use the full screen height, so a tall narrow monitor would make sense unless I want two windows open at once. Of course, some monitors can be rotated for use vertically, but here again widescreen isn't ideal because it gives you a rather narrow screen, also the viewing angle of LCDs is designed with horizontal use in mind so vertical use isn't always satisfactory in this respect. |