Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Are We Losing Vertical Pixels?

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the for-you-uriah dept.

Displays 1140

An anonymous reader writes "Switching from 1600x1200 to wide 1680x1050 to HD 1600x900, we are losing more and more vertical space, thus it is becoming less and less simple to read a full A4 page or a web page or a function call. What's the solution for retaining the screen height we need to be productive?"

cancel ×

1140 comments

Solution (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811128)

Buy a different monitor or buy two or turn one sideways.

Re:Solution (2, Interesting)

PixelThis (690303) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811236)

That's my solution, two monitors... one vertical and one horizontal.

Re:Solution (3, Interesting)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811376)

That's my solution too: I have one "real" panel (a 20" 1600x1200 4x3 panel) and one "short screen" panel (22" 1680x1050 16x9) that is rotated 90 degrees. Word processing docs and web pages work great on the short screen (wide screen) when rotated. In fact, I am typing this post on the rotated screen right now.

Re:Solution (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811242)

Good ol' Mr. Malda. Maybe you could correct LOOSING to LOSING before you post the article, you dumb fuck.

Re:Solution (4, Insightful)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811300)

Sadly, this is what I've had to do. Unfortunately, it seems to be harder and harder to find non-wide-format monitors.

So few apps are written to handle monitors with vertical resolution of less than 1k pixels, that these new monitors are getting rather obnoxious.

I think UI design should have an option to put menus on the side now, to handle the wider formats.

Rotate (1, Informative)

oldhack (1037484) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811172)

Rotate 90 degrees.

What's happening to this website?!

Re:Rotate (1)

sholsinger (1131365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811204)

Absolutely.

Re:Rotate (4, Informative)

DanTheStone (1212500) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811298)

The linked article was talking about laptop screens, where that's not really an option. I could see some humorous results if you tried. The solution is just as simple: Develop on an external monitor (optionally rotated 90 degrees).

Public transport (4, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811446)

The solution is just as simple: Develop on an external monitor (optionally rotated 90 degrees).

Now figure out how to carry a portrait monitor and power supply on the bus. I thought the whole point of having a laptop was to be able to work in a vehicle or in a restaurant.

Re:Rotate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811304)

Rotate 90 degrees.

What's happening to this website?!

Exactly, my setups usually have at least one portrait and one landscaped screen since wider views are usually great for spreadsheets and higher for code/site viewing.

Re:Rotate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811306)

It's a little hard to type with your laptop's keyboard perpendicular to the table.

Re:Rotate (3, Funny)

blueZ3 (744446) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811396)

You think that's hard, you should try switching to Dvorak!

Re:Rotate (1, Informative)

discord5 (798235) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811340)

Rotate 90 degrees.

Mod +1, Practical please. Nearly every monitor does this these days. I'm not a big fan of it but I see lots of people doing it.

What's happening to this website?!

It's grown into a monster that feeds on the tears of admins whose webservers die.

Re:Rotate (5, Informative)

TimeForGuinness (701731) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811388)

Yea, I tried that but my desk isn't long enough for my legs.

Re:Rotate (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811500)

>>>HD 1600x900

My old LCD was only 1024x800 you insensitive clod! That new HD 900 pixel high screen was an upgrade for me. (Also shouldn't it really be 1920x1080 for full HD?)

Re:Rotate (3, Interesting)

yurtinus (1590157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811528)

What monitors do you recommend that have worthwhile vertical viewing angles? I tried rotating one of my screens but it seems the cheapo Dell displays at my office just aren't designed for above/below viewing. Makes me wonder who was on the design team that thought adding rotation to a cheap panel that has no vertical viewability was a good idea...

Re:Rotate (1)

the_banjomatic (1061614) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811562)

The problem I've always had with rotating a monitor 90 degrees is that you loose the ability to use cleartype since the sub-pixels are no longer stacked correctly. To some people this doesn't matter much, but when looking at code all day, the right font and proper smoothing makes a world of a difference.

Obvious (1)

syntap (242090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811178)

Buy a 4:3 display for a development machine?

Re:Obvious (1)

Zarf (5735) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811230)

Buy a 4:3 display for a development machine?

I keep around some 4:3 monitors for development. When using two screens I typically stack them, I don't go side-to-side.

Re:Obvious (2, Interesting)

MarcQuadra (129430) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811322)

It's getting hard to find 4:3 displays bigger than 19", or with higher resolutions, or with better underlying technology.

It's sad, but it seems everyone has fallen for the 'wider is better' idea.

Dual 960x1080 (1, Troll)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811486)

It's sad, but it seems everyone has fallen for the 'wider is better' idea.

Don't think of it as 1920x1080. Think of it as two 960x1080 areas.

Re:Obvious (1)

AnonymousClown (1788472) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811578)

It's sad, but it seems everyone has fallen for the 'wider is better' idea.

Because folks are viewing more TV and movies on their computers?

Re:Obvious (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811342)

and pay more for the monitor than for the entire rest of the computer (including peripherals).

The monitor manufacturers have been taken over by "All screens must be optimized for movie-watching!" types :'(

Re:Obvious (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811514)

No, they have been taken over by economies of scale for consumer demand in LCD panel resolution.

1920x1200 and 1680x1050 (and 4:3) are still available but you're gonna pay extra for it.

Re:Obvious (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811354)

Where? These things are really hard to find.

Re:Obvious (1)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811582)

1280x1024 is still very widely available (and very cheap, barely over $100)

1600x1200 is getting harder to find though - the finest desktop resolution I have ever worked in.

Re:Obvious (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811604)

Maybe you should advertise on ebay or amazon?
WANTED:
The old VGA monitors or S-video TVs you don't want, so long as they are 4:3 ratio. Will pay $30 to cover shipping.

Sideways! (0, Redundant)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811184)

Turn your monitor sideways. If only all problems were this easy to solve!

Re:Sideways! (5, Funny)

DevConcepts (1194347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811454)

But then my neck hurts at the end of the day from turning my head....

Re:Sideways! (1)

meow27 (1526173) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811502)

ok. but now how do i type on my laptop?

see the problem?

Re:Sideways! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811534)

ok. but now how do i type on my laptop?

External keyboard?

Glass is half emtpy? (1)

dredwolff (978347) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811190)

if you look at it another way, you can turn your laptop on it's side and you're gaining vertical pixels while losing horizontal ones, make it *better* for reading A4 ;)

My solution (1)

Abstrackt (609015) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811198)

My second monitor is on an arm so I can rotate it as needed. It's also handy for showing documents to clients as they can move it around themselves.

Use a monitor (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811200)

Simple solution: use an external monitor rotated 90 degrees.

Losing resolution (3, Interesting)

VGPowerlord (621254) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811202)

This depends entirely on the monitor you buy.

I went from a 1600x1200 CRT to 1920x1200 LCD. In other words, I lost no vertical resolution.

90 turn (1)

Boona (1795684) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811206)

My second screen is tilted 90 degrees. It's great for coding.

Re:90 turn (2, Funny)

sjs132 (631745) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811488)

Would that not put the second monitor looking down against your desk? |/_ ??

Is it more productive for coding because now you cannot surf Youtube or read Slashdot when you should be coding? That would increase my productivity too. :)

Rotate the screen 90 degrees (1)

puddles (147314) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811208)

I have two 1680x1050 monitors in portrait mode. Works great. Lets me see long blocks of code nicely.

Easy (1)

The MAZZTer (911996) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811220)

Rotate the screen 90 degrees. I have a coworker who did this with two 5:4 LCDs. Looks funny but it seems to work for him.

Rotate? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811222)

Rotate your screen 90. (Most

Now you have more vertical space than ever before!

I'm American (-1, Troll)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811224)

What's an A4 page?

Maybe you meant 8.5"x11".

rotate! (1)

CoJoNEs (73698) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811228)

Um... rotate the screen?

Ribbon!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811234)

Who will not wear zee rribbon?!?!

Flip it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811244)

I run 2 1680x1050 monitors, one sitting on it's base naturally and the other rigged onto it's stand rotated portrait. One screen is for play, one is for work.

Deal with it (1, Troll)

immakiku (777365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811246)

Your screens are getting more dpi and more inches per screen. You're getting relatively fewer vertical pixels because you're simply getting more horizontal pixels. This is an improvement, especially considering most people don't need tall screens. If you're one of the few who do, do what the guy posted and rotate 90 degrees.

Re:Deal with it (4, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811584)

Actually no.
DPIs are now static because they expect us to use them only for movies. 1080 vertical pixels is all that you should need.

Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landscape (-1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811248)

the A4 is oriented in portrait mode only to fit the roll of a manual typewriter. Landscape is more natural for our eyes. That why there are no movies in narrowscreen.

Just loose the potrait mode, and go with all widescreen, like powerpoint etc.

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811440)

Lord of the Rings 3D! Now in narrowscreen!

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811450)

Because manual typewrites predate "potrait mode"? hahaha

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (4, Insightful)

Moridineas (213502) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811548)

I rather think it depends on what you're doing. I work in publishing, and there are reasons most books are the way they are. Wide columns of text can be difficult to read. Obviously on a computer you're not just reading columns of text, but it does make a difference.

If you've got a iPad, Kindle, what not, try reading in landscape vs portrait. Not everybody likes the same thing, but in general I prefer narrow columns.

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (4, Insightful)

pesc (147035) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811568)

Do you read?
Books, magazines, etc print text in portrait mode.

Heck, the newspapers even print the text in several columns to avoid very long lines, as that makes text more difficult to read. (I hate programmers that create 200-character statements on one line.)

For people using computers for text (documents, programming, etc) rather than watching movies, the vertical resolution is valuable.

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811570)

the A4 is oriented in portrait mode only to fit the roll of a manual typewriter. Landscape is more natural for our eyes.

If lines of text get much longer than 80 characters, the eye has trouble reliably finding the start of the next line without rereading or skipping.

Re:Loose potrait mode for good, and go with landsc (1)

Neil Watson (60859) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811602)

I don't believe that it is more natural for your eyes to read the long lines created by wide displays. This is why typesetting usually has lines less than 80 characters long. Any longer and the reader might loose the line.

For everyone that suggested rotation, I have not seen very many screens that can be rotated. Especially on laptops.

1920x1080 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811252)

It's nice enough.

Simple really... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811254)

As you loosen the screen requirements to a less-stringent format, the vertical pixels flatten since the horizontal pixels cannot support the additional weight.

-AC

Consumers are cheap. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811260)

Cheapskate consumers should stop buying crappy TV panels that have 1920x1080 resolution.

Of course cheapskate consumers are, on average, idiots and all they see is "ooo Full HD!".

Manufacturers are happy to pump out cheap crap with same panels as on cheap TVs.

You can still get 1920x1200 monitors. You need to pay a premium for them, but if you have ever used both types, you will happily pay it for a far more usable screen.

Re:Consumers are cheap. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811394)

Not only that, half the time they're not viewing HD widescreen content so it's blurry and is using the wrong aspect ratio. If I fix the aspect ratio, they always get in a huff about wasted screen space. Shame they don't realize they're wasting the whole fucking TV.

Re:Consumers are cheap. (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811418)

Or, it could be that some people don't like dealing with horizontal bars when viewing 1080p content.

We're not all cheapskate consumers, you know...some of us just buy ::gasp:: what serves our purposes.

Re:Consumers are cheap. (1)

yoghurt (2090) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811474)

But you can't get a laptop with a 14" 1400x1050 screen any more. You are stuck with something short and squat or wide and heavy. Turning your laptop sideways is not really an option. Nor is dragging an external monitor around with you any better.

A good way to prevent loosing monitors (3, Funny)

bilbravo (763359) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811264)

Is to make sure they are fastened down properly!

Geez, get a new editor!

Re:A good way to prevent loosing monitors (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811522)

Geez, get a new editor!

From the guy talking about preventing "loosing" monitors.

The solution is fun (0, Redundant)

Gertlex (722812) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811266)

Dual monitors. One mounted sideways.

The only real downside here is making background images that span both and line up.

I too had the same complaints when looking for monitors a couple months ago... and no, I didn't end up with a lot of vertical... 1920x1080 (and a 1080x1920).... Horizontally, said monitor is wide enough to view three entire pages in Word, side by side, without wasting space.

What? 1600x900? (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811270)

I thought HD (1080p) was 1920x1080?

OK, same ratio I guess. Still.

I actually don't need my 24 inch monitor to go much higher, my eyes generally occupy one, comfortable level. If I had a smaller widescreen monitor I can see the argument perhaps, but this is fine.

Some of us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811272)

still heart 800 by 600.

Re:Some of us... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811552)

The great thing about 800x600 is that you can lower the resolution of a 1600x1200 screen down to it without hurting quality. Great for old people.

See this a lot ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811274)

I do see this happening in monitors. Sometimes, what you end up is a computer monitor optimized for movies, but not computer stuff as the pixels are actually wider to fit the screen, instead of being nice square pixels where a circle in the native resolution is actually round. So, it's like "fake" widescreen which is good if you're gonna watch movies but not edit text.

Of course, I'm still trying to figure out why a year after I bought my Acer 23" flatscreen with 1920x1080, I can't even buy the equivalent screen without spending markedly more than I paid for it. Methinks I got a sale that they never intended to happen -- 'cause the specs on my monitor are still hard to find again.

Use multiple monitors. (1)

ikarous (1230832) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811276)

I use three monitors for my development work. One of these monitors is a traditional 4:3 LCD; I use this to refer to longer documents and source code. The other two monitors are my "main" monitors and are identical 1600x1050 native resolution models. I use these for my IDE/editor and debugging panels. It's the perfect setup for me.

Where.. (3, Insightful)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811286)

Where did this obsession with Widescreen come from anyways? I understand for "widescreen films", but why are all monitors wide now? It's weird that it kind of slowly crept into the norm..

Re:Where.. (1)

gunnk (463227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811366)

It's the manufacturers of the LCD panels. One form factor, one product line for HDTV's and computers. Cheaper.

Re:Where.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811492)

Still, computer monitors tend to be 16:10 and hdtv's are 16:9.

Re:Where.. (1)

peragrin (659227) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811558)

so what happens when they force 3D down our throats?

widescreen 3D tv's that you can't actually use for all. yea!!!!!!!!!

Re:Where.. (1)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811484)

In my case I splurge on the higher resolution screens, of whatever size, and end up using the sides for other things.

What we need is some sort of predictive window sizing/placement alogorithm.

Re:Where.. (1)

Kazymyr (190114) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811524)

It's cheaper for manufacturers to make widescreen panels of the same diagonal size and comparable horizontal resolution, than 4:3 panels. Why? Fewer total pixels.

Manufacturers have been really pushing widescreen displays for a while now over "normal" ratio ones.

Side by side (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811626)

why are all monitors wide now?

So that you can put two documents side-by-side. Use "Tile Vertically" under Windows XP or Snap under Windows 7.

Form factor for laptops (1)

Bovius (1243040) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811288)

I think this trend has more to do with the size and shape of laptops than anything else. A keyboard and touchpad usually don't need to take up a 4:3 rectangular space, and space is at a premium for laptops.

Dont buy a cheap ass lo-res monitor? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811308)

Or, is that too complicated a solution?

He's talking laptops (1)

Derkec (463377) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811314)

Yes, a sideways monitor is clever everyone. But if you look at the submission rather than the edited entry, he's clearly complaining about laptops. Which, if you turn sideways, are kinda tricky to type on. I guess "get an additional monitor" is legitimate, but it seems like there must be some vendors who are not shrinking their vertical pixel counts.

The URL for the article (4, Funny)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811316)

http://www.len.ro/2010/10/why-am-i-loosing-screen-height-on-each-new-laptop/

Maybe because you haven't tightened it enough?

"loosing" (1, Redundant)

imgod2u (812837) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811326)

I totally agree. The amount of vertical space needs to be tighter.

Don't buy cheap.... (5, Insightful)

Temkin (112574) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811330)

The low-end computer monitor market is using commodity HD TV LCD's. The solution is to pony up and buy a middle tier monitor that does proper 1600 x 1200 or something aspect ratio appropriate.

You get what you pay for.

Turn that frown! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811336)

Turn that frown 90 degrees around!

Lose a window (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811350)

The question: "What's the solution for retaining the screen height we need to be productive?"

Lose Slashdot.

where have the high res laptop screens gone (5, Insightful)

gonar (78767) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811362)

why is it suddenly so hard to find a laptop with a good screen?

it is nearly impossible to find a laptop with anything other than 1366x768.

my 4 year old 14" dell has a 1440x900 screen and at the time a fairly high end cpu/memory combo (core duo/1gb). I paid $650 for it.

today I can't get a laptop with an equivalent screen for under 850. nearly all laptops don't even offer high res screen options anymore.

just because you can market a 1366x768 screen as HD does not make it good enough. especially if we are talking 17" laptops.

A picture is worth a thousand words (0)

Rudeboy777 (214749) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811364)

A picture is worth a thousand words. [dell.com]

Do your research for this feature and rotate your monitor 90 degrees.

Re:A picture is worth a thousand words (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811550)

OK, now imagine a keyboard attached to the wide side of the screen.

Ha! That's easy. (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811374)

We're now a culture that prefers consuming the latest HD pulp over reading.

Tough to find a 16x10 monitor anymore! (3, Interesting)

Saint Stephen (19450) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811384)

All the monitors are 16x9 now (1920x1080). I have the same problem - I don't want to go "up" to 1920 from 1600x1200 (20" 4:3 flat panel I have from 2002 - cost 1000$) and lose 180 vertical pixels!

I tried to find a 16x10 but there are none in the stores and hard to find even on newegg etc. I asked on some forums and it's just because they aren't making them anymore.

Bummer.

Re:Tough to find a 16x10 monitor anymore! (1)

MikkoApo (854304) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811632)

I'm thinking about getting HP ZR24W, it's a quality screen with 1920x1200. At least it won't be a setback from 1600x1200.

http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/hp_zr24w.htm [tftcentral.co.uk]

Slashdot a stupid site for politics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#33811386)

And articles like this make it a stupid site for tech.

Screens are being designed for entertainment (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811408)

Because that's what the people are demanding: 16x9 screens for their HD videos.
Those of us who do actual work and need room to fit a 8x11 page into the screen have become the unimportant minority.

Split your screen horizontally in two (1)

0olong (876791) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811414)

That's what I do, and it works great, especially if you use a tile based window manager or plugin (e.g. an IDE on the left half and a browser on the right half).

Obligatory (4, Insightful)

The Master Control P (655590) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811436)

Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com]

I too find it disturbing that displays have gone to 2MP and stopped. We were this close to being able to actually read a PDF on 100% zoom without squinting. WTF is going on?

Vote with your wallet (1)

demonbug (309515) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811462)

Seriously, the only solution is to vote with your wallet.

I, too, was disturbed when I recently had to buy a replacement for my 1600x1200 Dell monitor (which died after only 5 years). I looked for a similar monitor, but couldn't find a decent one at a reasonable price - everyone seems to have gone gaga for widescreen monitors. I could barely even find any decent 16:10 monitors, and the ones I could find were significantly more expensive than the ubiquitous 1920x1080's.

In the end I gave up, and just went ahead and bought a cheapo 16:9. I cared, but not enough to spend an extra $100+ for those extra 120 vertical pixels. If you do care, the only thing you can do is bite the bullet and buy one of the few monitors that do offer what you want.

On a completely unrelated note; why is it that the insert cursor disappears in the right half of the comment box? It is really fricking annoying - I have to put the cursor in the middle of a line, then use the arrow keys to move it where I want to edit. Only happens on Slashdot. Is this just a Firefox thing (happens to me at work and at home, on various versions of firefox; I can't be bothered to check on IE or Chrome at the moment)?

Rotate the screen? Seriously? (5, Insightful)

pclminion (145572) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811464)

Have you ever actually benchmarked video performance on a rotated display? Even with hardware supported rotation, the framebuffer read-out order is no longer consecutive which completely fucks video performance.

I seriously can't believe the suggestions... It's like saying "What happened to all the compact cars?" and you reply "Stop whining, just crush your car down to size." Why can't we just buy something in the form factor we want?

vertically interesting content (1)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811506)

People always say that with widescreen movies you will see more (horizontally).
But I think that widescreen movies actually show that "we" suck in producing vertically interesting content.

An other often used excuse that widescreen is better is because people naturally see in widescreen. Which is bullshit. The eyes point in the same direction and are not that far apart. So the active focal area is much more square shaped.

Isn't it obvious? (1)

zeroRenegade (1475839) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811526)

The manufacturers needed them for mobile devices...

Turn toolbars to sidebars (1)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811540)

http://j-walkblog.com/images/too_many_toolbars.jpg [j-walkblog.com]

The first thing I do is reconfigure the start menu / gnome panel to live on the side, rather than the top/bottom.

Then disable most of the toolbars / status bars in apps (Google Chrome helps a lot with this, since they have an integrated titlebar/tabbar), and a popup status bar / search bar.)

Finally, I just run more sidebar apps (like gkrellm and the Google desktop sidebar) to fill in the side space until my main app windows are more nicely proportioned. Mostly psychological, yes, but whatever, it helps.

I think the technological history has to do with CRTs being cheaper to blow glass in "square" aspect ratios, like 4:3 and ultimately 5:4. But then LCDs came out, and it became cheaper to make displays bigger by making them long and narrow, since the fab process would become more expensive based on how wide the machinery needed to be.

Move the Taskbar (1)

jacerm (1787262) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811612)

If you have a taskbar, you might try moving it to the left or right edge of the screen (rather than the top or bottom) to conserve a little vertical space. It takes some getting used to, though.

just a note here... (1)

Kane3162 (1886504) | more than 3 years ago | (#33811630)

I have to agree with this... the sudden hype for 16:9 resolutions is retarded as hell, yet like so many other stupid as fuck things, the media moguls are behind this one... I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 anyday, seriously! 2 monitors one 1920x1080 and one 1920x1200, I tossed the x1080 one so fast it would make your head spin, that 120 pixels DOES MAKE SO MUCH MORE FUCKING DIFFERENCE!!! and you can still watch 16:9 movies JUST FINE, infact you realize when you watch a1080p movie on a x1200 monitor HOW MUCH YOU HAVE ACTUALLY LOST (vs 4:3) but humanity has lost my hope, i hope 2012 is the end, you can fight it all you want, but GREED rules this world now and humanity has no hope of recovery from it, good fucking game retards...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...