Re: where are all the @#$%@#$% 16:10 monitors
Not weird at all, I prefer them as well. Although they are usually a bit more expensive these days, so that might be why there aren't any in the list.
124 posts • joined 25 Apr 2008
Not weird at all, I prefer them as well. Although they are usually a bit more expensive these days, so that might be why there aren't any in the list.
I'm in full agreement. I was eagerly awaiting the S6 as a possible replacement for my ageing S3, but the lack of removable storage is a complete deal breaker. It's not just the ability to cheaply add storage that's the problem, it's the way I currently just pop the SD card into my PC, manage the music on it via a PC-based sync tool, then pop it back into the phone. Very fast, very easy. And where I live in the north of Scotland, 3G/4G is just too patchy to be of any reliable use.
HTC manage to create a phone which has a premium metal feel, yet still includes an SD slot, so it's certainly possible to do. By removing one of Samsung's key features / selling points from this phone, they've ensured that I will not be buying one.
Instead, I've gone down the custom ROM route instead. It's completely re-vitalised the performance of my S3 and it includes an important feature that the S6 doesn't. Vote with your wallets everyone!
Actually, Firefox *used* to be the customisable one.
With every version they're locking more and more of it down, stripping out customisability and are forcing people to rely upon an ever-increasing messy-list of extensions to add back functionality/customisability that used to come by default with the browser.
The Australis "overhaul" alone removed the status bar, removed tabs-on-bottom, locked the address bar to the left, and removed the ability to put stop/reload wherever you want.
Firefox is slipping into obscurity as Mozilla seem hell-bent on making it look and work like Chrome, whilst continually removing all the powerful bits that used to make Firefox stand out. Hence why after nearly 10 years as my primary browser, I finally ditched it last year.
Similar idea here. I have a 5-year-old ThinkPad X201. With an SSD, a memory upgrade and a replacement keyboard, it's been completely re-vitalised. And it has a 16:10 screen unlike the 16:9 crap that Lenovo (and everyone else) insist on sticking onto all their computers these days. There's no reason why older laptops can't be easily revitalised with a couple of quick upgrades, then no new laptop is required - malware or otherwise.
I use Pale Moon as a result. A forked version of Firefox which retains the classic interface, but still receives updates and the likes. The introduction of Australis signaled the end of my usage of Firefox and its market share recently shows that I'm far from the only one that jumped ship.
Agreed! All the speed in the world doesn't change the fact that Australis is a hideous affront to everything Mozilla stands for (and its plummeting market share shows that I'm far from being the only one who feels this way). I just need to wait for the newer Spidermonkey version to be added onto Pale Moon...
Agreed. I despise BT ever since being ripped off by them a few years back and I really was not looking forward to having to jump network from O2 if they were bought by BT (seeing as they're one of the only networks that provides a signal where I live). To all EE customers, you have my sympathy...
By the time you get your 16:9 laptop screen to a height where it can compare to a 4:3 screen, it'll be a 21" laptop by this point. Laptops are judged by diagonal space and a 16:9 15.4" screen has less vertical room than a 16:10 15.4" screen (repeat for the other sizes).
Additionally, 16:9 means that once-useful screen space is replaced with a thicker plastic bezel (check most modern laptops and you'll see the top and bottom of the bezel is much thicker than the sides). It means a screen which is smaller in physical area than a 16:10 screen of the same comparable diagonal size. It usually means a drop in resolution as 1920x1200 becomes 1920x1080, and 2560x1600 becomes 2560x1440.
And worst of all, it was pushed for one reason alone: To make the panels cheaper so the manufacturers could earn more profit and/or push ever cheaper and nastier laptops out. Fine on a £400 disposable laptop, annoying on a £2,000+ and supposedly "professional" laptop.
Unfortunately, you forgot the one thing that still really spoils all the PC versions. And that is, they all have the same cheap, nasty and multimedia-friendly 16:9 screens instead of a more professional oriented 16:10 screen. The Macbook is therefore still unique in this area.
The laptop manufacturers are all busy scrabbling around trying to turn things around, but the one thing they're yet to click on is that the professional user does NOT want a 16:9 screen. Doesn't matter how many pixels they cram in, the aspect ratio is still rubbish and not geared towards proper work.
Give me a 16:10 option and I'll whip out my credit card and join the queue. Until then, I'll stick with my upgraded 2010 Lenovo laptop. Because it's designed for work, not just for watching movies on.
Sorry, not whilst it has the abomination that is Australis. I ended my long association with Firefox recently over this very issue.
Well, I've used BMC Remedy and it was absolutely bloody awful. I was thoroughly delighted when the time came for me to leave the company that used that awful pile of crap. Now, the current company I work for uses ServiceNow. It's not perfect, but it's a thousand times better than Remedy IMO.
Not content with ruining the interface and customisability with "Australis", now they're doing this as well. That's why after using Firefox as my main browser since it was Firebird 0.6 I removed it recently and migrated to Pale Moon. FF classic interface, supports FF addons and no Australis or sponsored tiles nonsense!
Allow me to recommend the Ducky Shine range of keyboards. They're not cheap, but mine looks simple, black and restrained. Turn it on and you get wonderful backlighting, mechanical keys (Cherry MX brown in mine), programmable macros etc. Turn it off, and it goes back to being a simple and clean-looking keyboard.
Agreed. I also messed around with Classic Theme Restorer for a while, got sick of the bodging (plus it didn't originally play nice with some of my other tab-manipulating add-ons), so I ended up moving to Pale Moon. Like Firefox, with add-on support, but without the awful new interface.
Instead of having to manually draw out each letter in a word, imagine if someone could create a device where you press a single button to get that letter to appear. And imagine how much faster people would work if they get hold of such device and become proficient with it...
Hence there's a reason why so many people are driven to utter distraction that they feel the need to install an ad-blocker. From the advertisers point of view, their relentless approach to make their ads more and more intrusive and in-your-face has meant people just switching them off altogether.
I agree entirely. A "Workstation" should be designed for work, this means having a screen resolution and aspect ratio which is geared towards work. 1920x1080 16:9 panels do NOT cut it for professional use. If this had a 1920x1200 panel with an optional 2560x1600 panel, it'd be great.
As it is, laptop manufacturers insistence on sticking with crap, cheap multimedia panels - even on supposedly high end machines is one of the main reasons why I am NOT replacing my existing laptop (Lenovo Thinkpad with a 16:10 panel, Core i5 and recently upgraded to 8GB RAM and 256GB SSD, because that way I got to keep the nice screen).
Pale Moon is worth a shout. Basically a heavily tweaked Firefox. It's compatible with FF extensions and removes some of Mozilla's annoyances (Australis theme being one of them).
Part of this does come from the mastering being scaled back a tad. Vinyl just doesn't suffer from the same, blatant, digital clipping that MP3s and CDs suffer from in this day and age. If you do put a clipped waveform onto a vinyl, the response of the needle will smooth off the worst of the damage, hence reducing the harshness of the sound.
Of course, this vinyl will sound MUCH better than the CD release for one reason from the article above:
- Zero compression used in the mastering
Now THAT is good news. The CD release will almost certainly be dynamically compressed and fully of clipping/distortion (the usual in other words), whilst the vinyl should be rich, dynamic and natural. If only more bands could look at mastering stuff properly for vinyl. Last one I saw before this was Red Hod Chili Peppers - Stadium Arcadium (vinyl was mastered separately by Steven Hoffman and sounds fantastic in comparison to the CD).
I agree that the world needs Sony. MS needs competition in the gaming arena and it's only because of the laid back attitude that Sony took with the PS4 that MS was forced to backtrack on some of the awful restrictions that they wanted to impose on the XBone. As a result, I want the PS4 to succeed and the XBone to fail.
But, with their past attitude towards consumers (the awful rootkit scandal and their bungled response to it, the DRM which crippled the Minidisk system, appalling Vaio support etc), Sony is a company which has exhausted a lot of my sympathy. I've spent the last few years avoiding Sony where possible as a result due to their previous immoral attitudes towards its previously loyal customers, so I'm not surprised to see them losing money. Dump on your customers and they'll return the favour by shopping elsewhere.
Saying that, I hope Sony does survive. Their attitude with the PS4 has been much improved. If they keep it up, maybe I will one day buy Sony products again.
Microsoft got themselves into this mess and only have themselves to blame. Windows 8 was a decidedly half-baked release. Even the biggest fan of TIFKAM has to admit that the shutdown process for example was ridiculously convoluted and the whole interface was very immature.
This has meant MS scrabbling to release updated versions to fix Windows 8's shortcomings, and now MS is stuck in the hole of either supporting multiple versions of its OS, or discontinuing support for them. If they'd bothered to ensure that TIFKAM was properly implemented in the first place, they wouldn't have this issue.
And of course, a lot of Windows 8's problems from a perception point of view are down to the "stick" approach that MS used to push TIFKAM. They wanted in on mobile, so they made a deliberate decision to try and *force* it onto everyone. They went out of their way to disable registry hacks for beta versions of Windows 8 that re-enabled the start menu and decided that hitting with the stick was the right approach. You WILL use our new, convoluted and immature interface whether you like it or not.
Call me picky, but if there's one thing I DETEST, it's a company dictating to me exactly how I should use their products, exactly how I must use their interface, etc, all to try and drive that company into markets which do not concern me. The result is a deep personal hatred for Windows 8. Not just from a technical/interface point of view, but from a point of view of what it stands for.
The only thing MS can do to get around this really is to accept that Windows 8 and the stick approach has been a failure, add more options and customisability back into Windows (which they are slowly doing), and then kill off the Windows 8 brand altogether.
Like I say, all their own fault. the more you hit with the stick, the more people will resist as a matter of principle. And now with multiple versions to support or abandon, they're riling up even the adopters.
It's not the sample rate that bothers me, just the overall point of this. I simply do not see the point of introducing high-definition audio formats when the music industry is utterly and totally incapable of making proper use of the existing technology. Modern music (well, for about the last 15-20 years) sounds absolutely dreadful - not because of sample rates or MP3 compression, but because of the utterly abysmal mastering.
The fact is that almost all music since the mid-90s has been mastered and released without the slightest bit of interest in quality. Instead, it's all dynamically compressed into a lifeless brick-wall of fatiguing distortion and clipping. CDs from the late 80s and early 90s showed how good basic 44.1Khz 16bit stereo can sound, but the format has since been utterly abused by the industry.
In my opinion, this is what needs to be fixed first. Sod spending £17 on another copy of a classic album, just learn how to properly use and exploit the existing technology first before we worry about 92Khz, 24bit and surround sound. The old CD format has the potential to deliver MUCH better sounding music, if only the music industry would try exploiting that potential.
Agreed. Windows 3.1 had more going for it visually than the Windows 8 desktop. I've used it on a couple of machines and the bland, lifelessness of the Windows 8 desktop just feels depressing.
Just depends how tweakable it is. The impending return of the Start Menu is a good thing. However MS need to keep it tweakable. So long as I can tweak it to suit my needs, great! Now all they have to do is provide some desktop themes that dont look lifeless, flat and downright god-awful. Sorry MS, the Windows 8 desktop is just a dreary place to be. The Windows 7 desktop looks far more visually pleasing still.
And this is an account which is set up on the iPad already (and hence locked), and which is in the name of a relative for whom they have the death certificate and will? Surely that combination of information rules out the chance of it being stolen from Joe Public.
It's likely to make a bit of noise, but not too much. I have an old SGI machine at home which has a 15K 3.5" system disk and although it's audible, the noise is surpisingly low. And as said, noise in a datacenter is less of an issue anyway due to cooling fans, aircon and the likes.
Samsung make some very nice laptops. The Series 9 ones are sleek, robust and well built.
Sony always had dreadful support and this is a prime reason why I stopped buying their kit. Took them nearly a month to replace the motherboard in my sister's Vaio for example.
Then at work we bought a Vaio for a member of staff. Battery died just after a year and we were quoted nearly £250 for a replacement. They charged £45 for a set of driver disks for it (and even then they were fresh from someone's CD burner), the thing was piled to the gills with crapware and took hours to clean up into a usable state.
In fact, we had such a bad experience that we placed a block on buying any further Sony laptops - the only company that we had this with.
Sony make some nice hardware, but fail dismally with software and support, and the whole package is important when you're shelling out £1,000 for a supposedly premium product.
Bye bye Vaio, you won't be missed. Not by me anyway!
Many people I know used it and learnt it - myself included. I can navigate around Windows 8 from TIFKAM, I can get into the control panel, shut down Windows etc. The problem is that I find TIFKAM to be less usable and less optimal than the Start menu. The Start menu was smaller, quicker and easier to use IMO.
TIFKAM is like Marmite. Some do admittedly love it, but too many people out there do not like it. Too many for a company like MS with around 90% of the desktop/laptop market to just force it unconditionally onto everyone without creating a backlash.
Agreed! Mixed case is easier to view without really thinking - hence why it's used on road signs and the likes. And I also bemoan the loss of rounded corners. Even Windows 3 had rounded corners...
The default themes in Windows 8 for the desktop are dire, and you can't add new ones without hacking about with system files. Even then, you cannot restore all the functionality that Windows 7 could do with the desktop visual elements.
MS: Add choice. Give people a choice of flashy/rounded UI themes or flat/square ones. Give them a choice of TIFKAM or Start Menu. Add choice and the complaints will go away.
It's a nice, high res, but has two drawbacks. Firstly, it's still 16:9, so an aspect ratio that is geared towards watching movies rather than producing work on. Secondly, it's a glossy screen and I HATE shiny reflections when I'm trying to get some work done.
Back in about 2007 at a previous job, I was fortunate enough to have access to a Dell Latitude D820 which had a 15.4" matte 1920x1200 screen. The clarity was excellent (and not too small that Windows looked bad - due to its poor DPI scaling) and programming on this machine was beautiful. Last I heard, it was still in use as there's simply nothing out there replacement-wise today that can match it screen wise.
"Can't we have 1680x1050 as a minimum, 1900x1200 for mid-range (think of it as Full HD with some extra space at the bottom for subtitles), and 2560x1600 for serious work?"
Now that would be beautiful. Just beautiful. I'd splash out right now if someone could make a 15" laptop with a 1920x1200 screen. They used to make them 4 years ago, but not anymore.
Agreed. I can just about accept a 1366x768 screen on a budget £400 laptop. But when I'm paying high prices, I don't expect a low-res, cheap-as-chips screen like this. Ideally I expect 16:10 of course for work because screen resolutions have actually gone backwards over the last few years (at work, we're replacing laptops that have 1280x800 res screens with 1366x768. For vertical space, that's a downgrade).
I still hate how you look at modern laptops and see such a fat bezel at the top and bottom to make up for where usable screen space used to be 3 years ago (this Toshiba is no exception).
Personally, I'd still go with the Samsung Series 9. <£900 and you get a very sleek ultrabook with a matte 1600x900 screen, backlit keyboard etc. It's not perfect, but it's still pretty decent, and it's a much better display than this!
Precisely. Both my desktop PC and laptop are approaching 4 years old. Both are Core i5 (2.6GHz in the laptop, 3.2GHz in PC), 6-8GB of RAM, both now have SSDs. Only major upgrade I've made (apart from the SSDs) was to replace the budget graphics card in the PC, and even then it was to a £170 Radeon.
Result, it boots in a flash, can run Skyrim at 1920x1200 with all the detail on maximum. So, why replace it? Go back a few years and an upgrade to a dual/quad core CPU from an old single core CPU was quite noticeable, and ditching a clunky P4 made a world of difference. These days, if I spend hundreds of pounds replacing my PC with a Haswell system, I honestly doubt that I'd notice much difference over my old system.
Intel are right to focus on power efficiency improvements with Haswell, but for me the difference doesn't justify a new system - especially (laptop wise) when it'd mean downgrading to an awful 16:9 screen!
Apple products currently leave a nasty taste in my mouth*, to such a level that I find it morally wrong to buy one at the moment. Apple's incessant suing of everyone over tiny, petty and pointless details - especially when they didn't invent most of them themselves anyway - is really starting to grate - and that's before you even get to the walled-off App store and Apple's anti-competitive rules for app publising etc.
My stance was similar for several years with Sony over their dreadful attitude over the Rootkit scandal some time back, Ubisoft over their awfully invasive DRM, EA over their cannibalism and destruction of small gaming studios - just in case someone thinks I'm just anti-Apple.
As it is, I know from talking to friends that I'm not the only one who feels this way. Apple have to ultimately realise that constant legal action over petty details makes them look like a sad, desparate, petty and moaning company. Suing over bigger technical infringements is fair enough, but when they're suing Samsung over the little rubber band effect, or HTC over "slide to unlock", it just gets ridiculous.
Apple: Please grow up, or else this will end up costing you even more sales as punters become increasingly sick of your attitude to competition.
* Now that really IS holding it wrong!
Yet another calamity to hit them, following the awful roll out of their updated interface a couple of months back. In just 2 months, Yahoo Mail has gone from a powerful and flexible interface on top of a pretty reliable mail system, to a crippled, stripped out and lousy UI on top of a flaky mail system. Two reasons why I'm in the process of ditching my 14 year-old Yahoo Mail account...
Although you are correct, having to resort to the search box to find basic functionality and underpinnings of the OS which have been there since the early 90s (and maybe even earlier) is a sure-fire way of accepting that the UI is a complete failure.
"At some some point in the evolution of their products all those vendors have to make a change & we consumers are obliged to accomodate those changes (by accepting or moving on)"
Rubbish. If Microsoft implement a crap interface and provide no way of working around it, I'm not forced to either accept it or move to a different OS (ie Linux). The third option is to shun that particular version of Windows, stick with one that works properly for what I use it for (Windows 7), then make damn sure that Microsoft is aware that I think Windows 8 is a mistake.
If everyone quietly accepts even when they disagree, MS will continue to steamroller over everyone. If enough people shun that version of Windows and complain, MS eventually are forced to react. They did it with Vista (by fixing it and calling it Windows 7), then they tried to do the same thing with Windows 8.1 (although not successfully - hence the continuing complains and the further planned concessions).
And to go back to the first point, nobody is demanding that MS get rid of Metro and force the Start Menu on everyone again. I'm fully aware that not everyone loves it. The only thing anyone is asking for is choice. MS used to provide this, Windows 8 is the first version that doesn't. That is the crux of the problem.
Me too. I will happily pay a few pounds for a decent game, and have done on many occasions. However, I want a one-off payment that will allow me to unlock and complete the game at a pace dictated by me. The "freemium" model is nothing short of a scam IMO and I will actively avoid any game that pushes it.
Sorry, I tried it, used it for a bit, and didn't like it. It has some nice features, but Metro was god-awful and the desktop just looked flat, lifeless and dull. Slapped Windows 7 back on and haven't looked back.
Windows 8 does have real promise, but there's just a few irritating "gotchas" that hold it back. With the option of a Start Menu, a few nicer themes and the option to turn off Metro on a desktop PC, it'd be great. However at the moment it's sadly lacking these options.
In fact I've found it: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/05/23/glossy-vs-matte-screens-why-the-pc-industrys-out-of-touch/
Scores seem to be 75% preference for matte, 13% for glossy and 13% for "undecided". I don't expect it to be completely impartial as a lot of those who responded will be matte screen fans that are annoyed by the abundance of glossy screens out there, but it seems to debunk the claim that a majority of users prefer glossy screens!
Agreed. I have a Lenovo X201 laptop from 2010. Core i5 with 2GB of RAM and an slow 160GB hard drive. It was definitely showing its age and ran rather sluggishly.
Now, it's got 6GB of RAM and a 128GB SSD and it boots in a flash and runs very fast and snappy. I've bought a good 2 or 3 years of extra life out of it and all for around £100. Plus it took less than 5 minutes to install both components. THAT is why I like a bit of basic upgradability in my laptops!
PC Pro did a survey on that a year or two back and around 80% of people who responded claimed they preferred matte screens. Sure that means some that like glossy screens, but you'd be surprised how few do. Problem with matte is that you lose some of the "Look at the shiny shiny" effect from it, which is probably why Apple aren't doing one.
Personally, although I love the 16:10 aspect ratio, the lack of a matte option combined with being utterly unable to upgrade any part of it would be enough for me to say "No". I can understand lack of upgradability on a tablet or ultrabook, but on a proper laptop there's no excuse for it.
I generally agree. The biggest advantage of a high resolution snapper is the ability to incorporate better digital zoom. Set it to 8MP and you end up with about 2.5x zoom without loss of quality (as it effectively crops the 20MP image down to 8MP rather than down-sampling it. At 20MP though, all it does is fill your storage up quicker.
A single sign-on which *requires* you to provide your full name and various other personal details, just to leave a comment on a video. Gone are the days when an e-mail address and password were sufficient.
And nice to get two in quick succession as well!
I agree. I resisted the urge to move to Chrome a few years back and the latest Firefox versions are very good. In fact in recent reviews I've seen, the latest Firefox build has shown to be faster and more stable than Chrome. Oh how the tables have turned compared with how sluggish Firefox used to be a few years back!
Fair enough, I won't then. I've repaired an iPhone 3G before as they're fairly easy to disasemble (and replacing the screen on one myself was FAR cheaper than getting Apple to do it). Other than that, I'll stick with my Samsung phone which has a user-replaceable battery and an iFixit score of 9/10. At least I know if I drop it that replacing the screen is possible.
And even if I can't do it myself, the higher the iFixit score, the cheaper it's likely to be for a 3rd party repairer to do the job. Take an iPad Air to the guy on the market and I bet half of them will just refuse these days.