Re: Monitor question

[Johan Kullstam <kullstj_ml@verizon.net>]

Gilbert Sullivan <whirlygig@comcast.net> writes:

> On 12/28/2010 09:40 AM, Klistvud wrote:
>> It's also horrible for web browsing, and for many other tasks. It
>> actually only has two uses I can think of: widescreen movies and
>> side-by-side document viewing. Given that movies are best viewed on
>> large TV sets anyway, the usefulness of widescreen computer monitors is
>> further reduced to just side-by-side document viewing. Arguably, even
>> for that task, dual-head setups are better.
>
> On the other hand, there are those of us who must use portable systems
> for side-by-side document reading and/or tiled terminal window use
> while traveling and are, thus, limited to a single screen. Widescreen
> works better for us.

Good for you.  My gripe is that one can no longer choose.  It's
shortscreen or nothing.

I had an old thinkpad t42 with a 14" 1440x1050 and it rocked.  It
weighed only 4.5 lbs even with cd drive.  For me, it was an optimal size
and weight.  The current offerings are all inferior - they are heavier,
have less vertical screen dimension and worse resolution.

> My portable systems have 1920x1200 LCDs. I'm so
> accustomed to them that I don't bother with multi-monitor setups at
> home or at the office any more. Just one widescreen setup suffices,
> and I don't have to fiddle around switching between multi-monitor and
> single monitor setups any more.
>
> My totally unbiased and scientific $.02.
>
> ;-)

-- 
Johan KULLSTAM