>All have 16:9 aspect ratio displays with either 1600 x 900 or 1368 x 768
Am I the only one tired of that wide-screen fad? Apart for gaming and watching movies, screens are a lot more useful in 4:3, or even vertical. Web pages and documents are vertical, and the interesting bit is always further down, never further right.
Velocity Micro Edge Z30 Midsize Desktop (2.66GHz Intel Core i5 750, 4GB DDR3, 500GB HDD, DVD±RW DL, Windows Vista Home Premium 64-bit)
Apple iMac All-In-One Desktop (3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2, 1TB, DVD+-RW DL, Mac OS X v10.5 Snow Leopard, 27" LCD)
HP (Hewlett-Packard) Pavilion p6210f Mini-Tower Desktop (2.6GHz Athlon II X4 620, 6GB DDR2, 640GB HDD, DVD±RW DL, Windows 7 Home Premium)
HP (Hewlett-Packard) Compaq Presario CQ5210F Mini-Tower Desktop (2.7GHz Athlon 64 X2 215, 3GB DDR2, 500GB, DVD±RW DL, Windows 7 Home Premium)
Apple iMac All-In-One Desktop (3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 4GB DDR2, 500GB, DVD+-RW DL, Mac OS X v10.5 Snow Leopard, 21.5" LCD)
LG widens notebook range
gratou
wide-screen fad #
Posted Friday 18th September 2009 09:27 GMT
>All have 16:9 aspect ratio displays with either 1600 x 900 or 1368 x 768
Am I the only one tired of that wide-screen fad? Apart for gaming and watching movies, screens are a lot more useful in 4:3, or even vertical. Web pages and documents are vertical, and the interesting bit is always further down, never further right.
Anonymous Coward
4:3 #
Posted Friday 18th September 2009 15:25 GMT
No, you are not: I thought *I* was...
st~