Just barely, but unless you're avoiding Macbooks for the OS instead of the cost you're not going to like the other options any better.
Theres the Pixel mentioned earlier in this thread, Linus Torvalds is using it as his new Linux machine: http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/25/4023830/google-chromebook-pixel-review But it's $1299 and has very little storage space. Toshiba's releasing a new product the Kirabook: http://www.theverge.com/2013/4/17/4235660/toshibas-high-res-kirabook-takes-on-the-macbook-air-and-pro-all-at But it starts at $1599 On Apr 18, 2013 7:53 AM, "Jeff Anderson" <[email protected]> wrote: > On 4/8/13 8:42 PM, Michael Torrie wrote: > > On 04/07/2013 10:14 PM, Logan Gunnell wrote: > >> Phillip, why the big priority on the NOT widescreen? I have heard about > >> people preferring them before but I haven't actually heard why and how > it > >> feels/looks better. I'm just curious to hear the arguments, it may > persuade > >> me to try them out. > > Wow this is the thread for long-dead UUG alumns to come out of the > > word-work! > > > > Sadly most people just consume media on their computers these days, so > > the cheap TV panels have taken over the entire industry like a plague. > > With a large monitor I don't mind as much, since I can do two vim > > windows side-by-side. But having a screen with a lower resolution (DPI) > > than I had back in 1999 is pretty pathetic, really. > > > > Also I'm always amused by people who maximize their web browsers on > > wide-screen monitors. Cracks me up. Some companies, like MS and Apple > > have embraced the widescreen idea with full-screen apps and layouts that > > stretch across the screen. With Outlook you basically have to > > full-screen the thing now. Progress is sure strange. > I am a fan of 16:10 displays. I have been avoiding all 16:9. After using > a 16:9 display at work that's 2560x1440, I've decided that 16:9 can be > okay, as long as it isn't as small as 1920x1080. My wife wanted to get > me a monitor on black friday this last year, and I told her as long as > it was at least 1200 pixels high, and 16:10 or 16:9, I'd be okay with > it. She was unable to find a "good deal" with that criteria, and I > remained monitorless. > > When the retina display macbook pros started coming out, I was really > hoping that would push other manufacturers to do the same. I haven't > seen as much movement in that direction by others as I'd like, but I do > understand it can take a long time to retool for doing displays. Perhaps > I'm wrong-- is there another manufacturer that's trying to follow apple > in this regard? > > > Jeff Anderson > > > -------------------- > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list >
-------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info (unsubscribe here): http://uug.byu.edu/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
