Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Google Pushes Linux Support For Chromebook Pixel

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuke81 View Post
    Hmm 1500$ web browser. Odd aspect ratio 3:2, but the resolution is very good. Don't like the touch screen and glossy panel. Maybe with matte non touch panel without OS could be the one, but then it's samsung their netbooks what I have been tried are all horrible.
    FYI, 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios were the norm in CRTs and LCD monitors before manufacturers decided to screw all serious workers over by introducing shitty 16:9 panels to cut costs.

    4:3 and 3:2 are still the MOST OPTIMAL for doing actual work (that does not involve watching crappy movies), and it's been argued for by at least 1 journalist who grew up in those 'good old times':

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-...ue-/13399.html

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Arctic circle, Finland
    Posts
    305

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    FYI, 4:3 and 3:2 aspect ratios were the norm in CRTs and LCD monitors before manufacturers decided to screw all serious workers over by introducing shitty 16:9 panels to cut costs.

    4:3 and 3:2 are still the MOST OPTIMAL for doing actual work (that does not involve watching crappy movies), and it's been argued for by at least 1 journalist who grew up in those 'good old times':

    http://vr-zone.com/articles/monitor-...ue-/13399.html
    Hmm I just don't remember single one crt with aspect ratio of 3:2(Hmm google says it's common aspect for photographers). 4:3 and 5:4 are the ones what I used with crts, now I have 16:10 widescreen(yes I'm with you with madness of 16:9 or even 21:9 aspect ratios hate them both).

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tuke81 View Post
    Hmm I just don't remember single one crt with aspect ratio of 3:2(Hmm google says it's common aspect for photographers). 4:3 and 5:4 are the ones what I used with crts, now I have 16:10 widescreen(yes I'm with you with madness of 16:9 or even 21:9 aspect ratios hate them both).
    https://plus.google.com/100479847213...ts/QhmBpn5GNE9

    Runs stock mint which means we can install pretty much everything on it. YAY!

    Now we need someone to split it open and find out if we can upgrade the mem and SSD.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 89c51 View Post
    https://plus.google.com/100479847213...ts/QhmBpn5GNE9

    Runs stock mint which means we can install pretty much everything on it. YAY!

    Now we need someone to split it open and find out if we can upgrade the mem and SSD.
    Read the comments in your own link before posting, why don't you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bill Richardson
    Sorry, no. In order to make it at thin as possible, we had to give up on socketed components. But the WiFi version has 32GB and the LTE version has 64GB, and the size of the OS hasn't changed. So you have at least 21GB for the stateful partition.

    And an SD card plugs in almost flush. Looks like about a sixteenth of an inch or less sticking out.
    NOTHING in the Pixel is replaceable. Not the SSD, not the RAM, not the WiFi, and not even the processor.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,495

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    4:3 and 3:2 are still the MOST OPTIMAL for doing actual work (that does not involve watching crappy movies), and it's been argued for by at least 1 journalist who grew up in those 'good old times':

    If your work consists of working with columns, then clearly taller is better, but for artists, horizontal space counts for a lot as well. I'm assuming that designers count as doing "real work".

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    If your work consists of working with columns, then clearly taller is better, but for artists, horizontal space counts for a lot as well. I'm assuming that designers count as doing "real work".
    As a digital artist I concur.

    I use a 16:10 monitor on my desktop which I use for drawing/graphics, even though my other 5:4 monitor has better specs otherwise (native sRGB mode, less backlight leak, etc). It's because the wide screen makes working in a graphics software so much better, you don't have to constantly switch between fullscreen mode and regular because the width gives extra space for the toolboxes and such.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    601

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dee. View Post
    As a digital artist I concur.

    I use a 16:10 monitor on my desktop which I use for drawing/graphics, even though my other 5:4 monitor has better specs otherwise (native sRGB mode, less backlight leak, etc). It's because the wide screen makes working in a graphics software so much better, you don't have to constantly switch between fullscreen mode and regular because the width gives extra space for the toolboxes and such.
    I'm no artist (the only things I can draw are stick men), so I'll take your word for it.

    Still, it's no denying that 16:9 and 16:10 are really shitty for other kinds of work such as word processing, spreadsheet management, or even playing with toy code in an IDE. Having to scroll up and down every so often really gets on my nerves especially if I am trying to get something done very quickly.

    We really need the 4:3, 3:2 and 5:4 monitors back. Better still if workstation notebooks and business notebooks can ship with these displays instead of 16:9 and 16:10. Entertainment and lifestyle notebooks can continue bundling 16:9 screens.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    1,462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    I'm no artist (the only things I can draw are stick men), so I'll take your word for it.

    Still, it's no denying that 16:9 and 16:10 are really shitty for other kinds of work such as word processing, spreadsheet management, or even playing with toy code in an IDE. Having to scroll up and down every so often really gets on my nerves especially if I am trying to get something done very quickly.

    We really need the 4:3, 3:2 and 5:4 monitors back. Better still if workstation notebooks and business notebooks can ship with these displays instead of 16:9 and 16:10. Entertainment and lifestyle notebooks can continue bundling 16:9 screens.
    16:10 is good for my needs, but I agree 16:9 is getting a bit too narrow vertically.

    3:2 would be a good compromise for general use, it's basically between 4:3 and 16:10.

    5:4 = 1.25
    4:3 = 1.33...
    3:2 = 1.5
    16:10 = 1.6
    16:9 = 1.77...

    On the other hand, if you combine two 5:4 monitors (each in portrait orientation) you get a 16:10 screen. 4:5 + 4:5 = 8:5 = 16:10.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •