MobileRead Forums - View Single Post

Katsunami · 01-27-2018, 07:46 AM

With regard to Firefox, I've once commented on it freezing the mouse and screen for a second or so when opening a new tab or window. I'm now convinced it has something to do with the Intel/Nvidia Optimus combination. Why? Because my 10 year old laptop, running exactly the same software as this one, doesn't do that. My desktop also doesn't.

In one of my chess programs, I have graphical glitches when resizing the window panes (fortunately they disappear when I let go of the mouse and the window redraws). This is either caused by Intel/nVidia Optimus, or the fact that I have Windows 10 set to 150% to effectively create a 1280x720 resolution @ 15.6 inch. (Any higher and I can't read it.) The old laptop (Intel card, 1280x800 @ 15.6, 100%) and the desktop (nVidia, 1920x1200 @ 24.1, 100%) don't have this problem.

Oh, and I detest the push for wider and wider screens. At the same diagonal, the most efficient screen is a fracking SQUARE. Don't give me that crap about how humans see in wide screen view. I'm missing fracking vertical pixels. Some programs just don't FIT in 720 or 800 pixels anymore.

My laptop in 2003 had a 15.4, 1024x768 (TN) screen (4:3, or 1.33:1).
The one in 2008 had a 15.6, 1280x800 (TN) screen (16:10, or 1.60:1).
The current one h as a 15.6, 1920x1080 (IPS) screen (16:9, or 1.78:1)

I can't run the last one at full resolution; I require 1280 or less width on a 15.xx sized wide screen or I'll be unable to read it. Thus I have set the last laptop to 150%, giving me 1280x720. While it's the best screen I had with regard to brightness and viewing angles, it still bothers me that I lost so many vertical pixels in 15 years. If this laptop had a 4:3 screen, at 1280 width it would have been 960 tall. Thus, the screens have gotten 25% smaller at approximately the same diagonal (720/960 = 0.75).

Don't believe me that a wider screen offers less space to work compared to a square one at the same diagonal?

Just imagine a 1600x1600 square screen. That would be easy to work with. Now imagine a 25.600 x 100 wide screen. It will have a HUGE diagonal, but it will be completely unworkable, even though it has the same area to work with. If you now cut it down to have the same diagonal size as the 1600x1600 screen, it will lose area.

I'm convinced the push for wider and wider screens is not in the interest of consumers. It's in the interest of manufacturers. They can offer screens of the same diagonal size, while making the workable area smaller and smaller.

01-27-2018, 07:46 AM	#222
Katsunami Grand Sorcerer Posts: 6,111 Karma: 34000001 Join Date: Mar 2008 Device: KPW1, KA1	With regard to Firefox, I've once commented on it freezing the mouse and screen for a second or so when opening a new tab or window. I'm now convinced it has something to do with the Intel/Nvidia Optimus combination. Why? Because my 10 year old laptop, running exactly the same software as this one, doesn't do that. My desktop also doesn't. In one of my chess programs, I have graphical glitches when resizing the window panes (fortunately they disappear when I let go of the mouse and the window redraws). This is either caused by Intel/nVidia Optimus, or the fact that I have Windows 10 set to 150% to effectively create a 1280x720 resolution @ 15.6 inch. (Any higher and I can't read it.) The old laptop (Intel card, 1280x800 @ 15.6, 100%) and the desktop (nVidia, 1920x1200 @ 24.1, 100%) don't have this problem. Oh, and I detest the push for wider and wider screens. At the same diagonal, the most efficient screen is a fracking SQUARE. Don't give me that crap about how humans see in wide screen view. I'm missing fracking vertical pixels. Some programs just don't FIT in 720 or 800 pixels anymore. My laptop in 2003 had a 15.4, 1024x768 (TN) screen (4:3, or 1.33:1). The one in 2008 had a 15.6, 1280x800 (TN) screen (16:10, or 1.60:1). The current one h as a 15.6, 1920x1080 (IPS) screen (16:9, or 1.78:1) I can't run the last one at full resolution; I require 1280 or less width on a 15.xx sized wide screen or I'll be unable to read it. Thus I have set the last laptop to 150%, giving me 1280x720. While it's the best screen I had with regard to brightness and viewing angles, it still bothers me that I lost so many vertical pixels in 15 years. If this laptop had a 4:3 screen, at 1280 width it would have been 960 tall. Thus, the screens have gotten 25% smaller at approximately the same diagonal (720/960 = 0.75). Don't believe me that a wider screen offers less space to work compared to a square one at the same diagonal? Just imagine a 1600x1600 square screen. That would be easy to work with. Now imagine a 25.600 x 100 wide screen. It will have a HUGE diagonal, but it will be completely unworkable, even though it has the same area to work with. If you now cut it down to have the same diagonal size as the 1600x1600 screen, it will lose area. I'm convinced the push for wider and wider screens is not in the interest of consumers. It's in the interest of manufacturers. They can offer screens of the same diagonal size, while making the workable area smaller and smaller.