Re: Screens
- From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <spamtrap@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2009 21:31:01 -0500
In <20091204222134.c1391b29.m.r.causer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, on 12/04/2009
at 10:21 PM, Mike Causer <m.r.causer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> said:
Best screen for text I can remember was the Sun monochrome 1192x900,
It's been a decade since I ran anythiong lower than 1280x1024, and I've
gotten used to 1920x1200; anything smaller would seem cramped.
Shell window with vi showing 80 lines of text was fine.
Hm, my editor window only holds 50x132 with a 16x8 character cell. Any
larger would take more real estate than I care for.
Of course my eyes were better 25 years ago....
Mine too, but I still hate scrolling.
So I think that 22-24" is right for a display at roughly arm's
length.
If I were doing drafting I might agree with you, but for text I'd be
happier with something larger, as long as the price was low.
But to return to my original rant, why can't screens be turned to
portrait format for serious text use?
Some can, but I'm not sure that a large[1] portrait display would be as
comfortable as a large landscape display.
[1] No, 24" is not large for a rectangular display.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> ISO position
Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+bspfh to contact me.
We don't care. We don't have to care, we're Congress.
(S877: The Shut up and Eat Your spam act of 2003)
.
- References:
- Re: Screens
- From: Mike Causer
- Re: Screens
- From: Seymour J.
- Re: Screens
- From: Mike Causer
- Re: Screens
- From: Seymour J.
- Re: Screens
- From: Mike Causer
- Re: Screens
- Prev by Date: Re: On the theory of systems administration
- Next by Date: Re: Words and their meanings
- Previous by thread: Re: Screens
- Next by thread: Re: Screens
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|