On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 10:03:24 -0500 (EST)
Stephen Powell wrote:
>
> Manufacturers are not doing this because the consumer wants it. They
> are doing it to cut costs. And they think they can get away with it.
> And sadly, in most cases, they are right. Most consumers can't even
> tell that they
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 16:35:49 -0500 (EST), Charlie wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach wrote:
>> Stephen Powell wrote:
>>> ...
>>> You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page:
>>>
>>> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm
>>>
>>> It's in the
- Original message -
> On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach
> shared this with us all:
>
> > - Original message -
> > > You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page:
> > >
> > > http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm
> > Link broken,
On Thu, Dec 30, 2010 at 12:58:42AM EST, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM:
> > Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's
> > shortscreen or nothing.
> >
> > I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
> > weighed onl
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 22:23:30 +0100 Simon Hollenbach
shared this with us all:
>- Original message -
>> You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page:
>>
>> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm
>Link broken, most certainly u meant:
>http://users.wowway.com/~zl
- Original message -
> You might enjoy my anti-winmodem rant in the following web page:
>
> http://www.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm
Link broken, most certainly u meant:
http://users.wowway.com/~zlinuxman/tp600.htm
> It's in the "Crucial Background Information" section.
> .'
Bob Proulx writes:
> Johan Kullstam wrote:
>> I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
>> weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size
>> and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier,
>> have less vertical screen dimen
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 06:53:00 -0500 (EST), Klistvud wrote:
> ...
> I would go with George Carlin here: When you see how stupid an average
> consumer is, consider that half of them are even more stupid than that.
> ...
I enjoyed your rant. It reminds me of the "winmodems" which have been
rammed
On Wed, 29 Dec 2010 23:58:42 -0600
Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Hello Stan,
> You're a member of a super-minority Johan. The majority of the
> marketplace wants wide screen, which is why you're finding little or
"The market wants what the market gets" is more true than "The market
gets what the market
Dne, 30. 12. 2010 06:58:42 je Stan Hoeppner napisal(a):
Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM:
> Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's
> shortscreen or nothing.
>
> I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
> weighed only 4.5 lbs even w
Johan Kullstam wrote:
> I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
> weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size
> and weight. The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier,
> have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution.
On 12/30/2010 12:58 AM, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM:
Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's
shortscreen or nothing.
I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For
On Thu, 30 Dec 2010 00:25:19 -0500
Johan Kullstam dijo:
>Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's
>shortscreen or nothing.
>
>I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
>weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal
>size and wei
Johan Kullstam put forth on 12/29/2010 11:25 PM:
> Good for you. My gripe is that one can no longer choose. It's
> shortscreen or nothing.
>
> I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked. It
> weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive. For me, it was an optimal size
> and weigh
Gilbert Sullivan writes:
> On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
>> It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It
>> actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and
>> side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on
>> large TV sets anywa
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 08:46:38PM EST, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
> Chris Jones put forth on 12/27/2010 7:00 PM:
> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote:
> >> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote:
> >
> > [..]
> >
> >> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay at
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 19:11:28 +0100, Klistvud wrote:
> Dne, 28. 12. 2010 15:49:26 je Paul Cartwright napisal(a):
>> On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
>> >
>> > It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It
>> > actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies a
Dne, 28. 12. 2010 15:49:26 je Paul Cartwright napisal(a):
On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
>
> It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It
> actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and
> side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best vi
On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It
actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and
side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on
large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen compute
Dne, 28. 12. 2010 08:24:22 je George napisal(a):
If you do your work in text mode, why do you want a widescreen
monitor?
Widescreen is good for films but horrible when it comes to reading,
which is
what you normally use your computer for.
It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many o
On Tue, 28 Dec 2010 13:39:40 +0200, Andrei Popescu wrote:
> On Ma, 28 dec 10, 09:13:00, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>>
>> I don't know how exactly it is done, but Linux takes into account the
>> actual size of the display (which is reported along its supported
>> resolutions) and not only the res
On Ma, 28 dec 10, 09:13:00, Eduardo M KALINOWSKI wrote:
>
> I don't know how exactly it is done, but Linux takes into account
> the actual size of the display (which is reported along its
> supported resolutions) and not only the resolution to determine font
> sizes (and maybe icon sizes or other
On Seg, 27 Dez 2010, Stan Hoeppner wrote:
I built my folks a new PC last year (Athlon II X2 Rigor 2.8 w/ ATI north
bridge video) and got them a 24" Asus widescreen LCD to go with it. Dad
is 73 Mom is 68. Dad wears trifocals and Mom bifocals. No matter what
font size (WinXP) I selected, the nat
On Fri, Dec 24, 2010 at 5:30 PM, Mark Neidorff wrote:
> I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors on the market.
snip
> 2. Are there monitors that do not support text mode out there? I'm asking
> because I do as much work on my server as possible in text mode, only using X
> when abs
Chris Jones put forth on 12/27/2010 7:00 PM:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote:
>> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote:
>
> [..]
>
>> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native
>> resolution.
>
> I agree. And the highest you can get.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote:
[..]
> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native
> resolution.
I agree. And the highest you can get.
> Look, 17" displays tend to use the same resolution (dot
On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote:
> Running Lenny updated.
> I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I
> currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but
> since my eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide scre
On 12/24/2010 9:30 AM, Mark Neidorff wrote:
Hi Folks,
Running Lenny updated.
I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I
currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my
eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" mo
On 12/24/2010 04:30 PM, Mark Neidorff wrote:
Hi Folks,
Running Lenny updated.
I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I
currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my
eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" m
Hi Folks,
Running Lenny updated.
I'm wondering what I lose if I switch to a large wide screen monitor. I
currently have a "regular" 17" Viewsonic (VP171s). Works fine, but since my
eyes are getting older, I'm tempted by the crop of wide screen 25" monitors
on the market. If you want to tell
On Saturday 21 October 2006 18:55, Justin Piszcz wrote:
> On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Chris wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors?
> >
> > How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors
> > resolution. 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance.
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006, Chris wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors?
>
> How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution.
> 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information
> about supported resolutio
On Sat, 21 Oct 2006 13:58:33 +0200, Chris wrote:
> How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution.
> 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information
> about supported resolutions.
I can tell you that my 9200 three years ago supported 1920X1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 10/21/06 06:58, Chris wrote:
> Hello,
>
> Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors?
>
> How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution.
> 1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains n
Hello,
Can anyone make any suggestions for 20" flatscreen monitors?
How can I tell if my Graphics Hardware will support the monitors resolution.
1600x1200 or 1680x1050 for instance. man radeon contains no information
about supported resolutions.
My hardware is:
01:00.1 Display controller: A
35 matches
Mail list logo
