Quote:
Originally Posted by ahi
The larger screen sizes are reasonable for the "usual" computing tasks people perform, and the smaller screen-sizes are not quite going to be used the same way.
i.e.: Few would torture themselves by doing any meaningful amount of word processing on a 10" screen, if they have any halfway reasonable alternative. It's good enough for watching a movie or a TV show on the subway or surfing the net (or even doing last-minute/emergency word processing) in similar scenarios.
Although, it is worth noting, that computers seek to replace neither books nor televisions... making the comparison questionable in my eyes.
|
In an age of Facebook and Twitter, Emails and Texting, YouTube and Wikipedia, a 10-inch netbook will find much use for those who thrive on non-stop communication.
Quote:
Indeed Ahi (he) meant the differences in the fonts.
|
Apologies. I was born and raised here in the Ozark Mountains of N Arkansas and have little experience with a multi-cultural society. Although 7 years in the St Louis area helped to broaded my scope a bit, I am still a bit behind. But I 'm learning.
Quote:
On "devices" (offset printed paper pages included in the broad term) with sufficient resolution, the human eye deals better with serif fonts (e.g.: Times New Roman, Palatino, Garamond), and on poorer resolution devices it deals better with sans-serif fonts (e.g.: Arial, Helvetica, Verdana).
The apparent choice of a sans-serif font on the smaller device suggests to me that perhaps the manufacturer had no faith in (or plan of) being able to match the resolution of 6" display devices... and opted for a default font that would less blatantly show this shortcoming.
|
Very possible. I have a new digital camera, and once my 5-inch (no snickering, you in the back) comes in, I'll try and remember to take some clear pics of different fonts and maybe a hands-on video.