• (cs) in reply to Jimmy Jones
    Anonymous:

    Landscape monitors suck. Almost NOTHING in the real world is landscape shaped so you spend all that money just to look at blank space.

    1)Games (wooo, peripheral vision!)

    2)Movies

    3)Obviously you've never seen my code. It's difficult enough keeping things from flowing off the edge of my (widescreen) monitor, I can't imagine it with my widescreen rotated pi/2. (I don't have to... it's really funky.)

    4) Almost nothing that isn't windows uses a wider-width-than-height aspect ratio

  • (cs) in reply to Erzengel
    Erzengel:

    4) Almost nothing that isn't windows uses a wider-width-than-height aspect ratio

    By that I meant windows itself and anything that primarilly uses HWNDs. Games and other fullscreen applications complain very loadly in the form of exceptions when the screen is rotated into portrait mode.

  • (cs) in reply to seebs
    Anonymous:

    Anonymous:
    Personally I think its a giant WTF of Jackal von ÖRF to use a resolution of 1680x1050 pixels and still maximise the windows. Your kind of missing the point of using a Window manager.. ? Don't worry, you're not alone, alot of Windows-users seems to suffer from this decease.

    Then you've missed the entire point of window management.  The goal is to get the best available display of whatever you're looking at.

     I have a 1600x1200 firefox, and a 1600x1200 xterm, and a 1600x1200 xchat, and so on.  I see one thing at a time -- the thing I'm looking at.  The thing I am looking at gets displayed the best way it possibly can, with large, clear, fonts and graphics.

     Non-maximized windows are a sop to GUIs that depend on poorly-controlled hiding and layering models.  Virtual desktop panels are the way to go.

    Nicely put and illustrates that while one is fully entitled to loathe unthinking habitual behavioural extensions leading to suboptimal results, one must conversely also always respect articulated and though-through reason!

  • Big John (unregistered) in reply to Jimmy Jones
    Jimmy Jones:

    Landscape monitors suck. Almost NOTHING in the real world is landscape shaped so you spend all that money just to look at blank space.



    You're right Jimmy, that wasted space IS a giant WTF, but its not the lovely 24" widescreen monitor, its the concept of maximising all your windows on such a grand resolution thats the WTF. As the owner of the picture claimed, he only maxmised it for the picture (he appearantly had a very secret wallpaper). On that resolution you could easily fit two browser windows side by side... you know... Mulitasking?
  • (cs) in reply to Erzengel
    Erzengel:
    Anonymous:

    Landscape monitors suck. Almost NOTHING in the real world is landscape shaped so you spend all that money just to look at blank space.

    1)Games (wooo, peripheral vision!)

    2)Movies

    3)Obviously you've never seen my code. It's difficult enough keeping things from flowing off the edge of my (widescreen) monitor, I can't imagine it with my widescreen rotated pi/2. (I don't have to... it's really funky.)

    4) Almost nothing that isn't windows uses a wider-width-than-height aspect ratio

    Movies and games (those that are new enough to support widescreen) benefit very much from widescreen.

    When writing code, I can have more tool windows open in my IDE (IntelliJ) when necessary. Also graphics editing benefits from all available screen area. The other 95% of the programs I use, I almost never keep maximized, because they are not able to take full advantage of large displays.

    I don't use my screen in portrait mode (seeing the top edge would require tilting my head), but I'm sure for some find that useful.

  • (cs) in reply to Big John

    Anonymous:

    (he appearantly had a very secret wallpaper)

    The wallpaper is not the secret thing - it's the files I have on my desktop which reveal who killed JFK.

    Talking about wallpapers, it's a major PITA to find a large enough wallpaper for 1920x1200. At least it was 1.5 years ago when I bough this monitor. From a batch of hundreds of wallpapers, only few were larger than 1280x1024, and even fewer were larger than 1600x1200. In the end I chose this wallpaper (800x1200) so that it's centered on my desktop, and the remaining desktop left and right from it is black. It actually looks quite stylish this way.

  • (cs) in reply to Jackal von ÖRF
    Jackal von ÖRF:

    Anonymous:

    (he appearantly had a very secret wallpaper)

    The wallpaper is not the secret thing - it's the files I have on my desktop which reveal who killed JFK.

    Talking about wallpapers, it's a major PITA to find a large enough wallpaper for 1920x1200. At least it was 1.5 years ago when I bough this monitor. From a batch of hundreds of wallpapers, only few were larger than 1280x1024, and even fewer were larger than 1600x1200. In the end I chose this wallpaper (800x1200) so that it's centered on my desktop, and the remaining desktop left and right from it is black. It actually looks quite stylish this way.

    http://www.interfacelift.com has nice giant wallpapers in most resolutions, including 1920x1200 and 1680x1050, which is what I need on my desktop and laptop (respectively, but you knew that). 

  • (cs) in reply to Jackal von ÖRF

    Jackal von ÖRF:

     As funny as that is in context, I work for support and we once had a user send in a "screenshot" that was exactly this, a picture he had taken with his digital camera of the screen.  Sometimes you should just walk the user through steps instead of asking "you know how to create a screenshot right?".  
     

  • Neomojo (unregistered) in reply to Jackal von ÖRF
    Jackal von ÖRF:

    Anonymous:

    (he appearantly had a very secret wallpaper)

    The wallpaper is not the secret thing - it's the files I have on my desktop which reveal who killed JFK.

    Talking about wallpapers, it's a major PITA to find a large enough wallpaper for 1920x1200. At least it was 1.5 years ago when I bough this monitor. From a batch of hundreds of wallpapers, only few were larger than 1280x1024, and even fewer were larger than 1600x1200. In the end I chose this wallpaper (800x1200) so that it's centered on my desktop, and the remaining desktop left and right from it is black. It actually looks quite stylish this way.

     Perhaps I'm crass, but like tiling wallpapers.
     

  • memberOfSquad (unregistered)

    I love this! In my organization we have a similar workflow used by some 'veteran' employees:

    WordPerfect to Printer to Fax (sent to all departments) to Networked Copier to PDF to Email

    What we see at the end is an email with an indiscernible, serialized subject bearing the PDF as an unnamed attachment that is inevitably routed by Outlook into the Junk Mail Folder. I just have to laugh.

  • Shinobu (unregistered) in reply to Nacho

    Anonymous:
    mmmmmmm probably too much...  :)[image]" />
    Yum, nice wallpaper. Very seasonal too.

  • Todd Gill (unregistered) in reply to Big John

    Am I the only person that uses one than monitor for multi-tasking? Actually, when I am coding I get a little angry if I don't have at least 2 monitors. I would take 2 - 17" inch flat panels over one oversized screen. I usually work on a 19" one and display my application or website on a 15 inch at 1024 x 768 so I know what my app with look like to a typical user.

  • Kraln (unregistered) in reply to Todd Gill

    At work, I was blessed with two 19" CRT screens. At home, I bought two Dell 20" Widescreen lcds. Let me tell you, I love the space, I don't feel cramped anymore.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/65761197@N00/315213041/in/set-72157594317151313/

    I'll take a new picture with the infinite wtf when I get back from work.

    Captcha: photogenic 

  • OMG! (unregistered)

    My first reaction was thinking of Homer Simpson screaming; that short near squeal scream he does something when in panic.

    The second one was "it's not even color coordenated?!".

  • Something similar (unregistered)

    I worked at the Internet operations department of a supposedly very tech-savvy trade association (whose member companies are daily pushing ahead in new Internet initiatives crucial to their core businesses).  One of the higher ups in our east coast office saw an article on C|Net he thought was interesting, so he printed it out and faxed it to his counterpart (an SVP) in our west coast office.  The west coast exec thought the member companies would want to take a look (never mind the copyright infringement, and that the SVP was an attorney helming a department where dealing with infringement of our members' copyrights was a daily activity), so he had his assistant scan the faxed printout of the web page into a PDF to send out via email to the member companies.

    Because, you know, emailing around a URL would have bee too easy...
     

  • Joe McKenzie (unregistered) in reply to Disintegrator

    You guys missed the crappy webcam phase... webcam pic (Pic taken with old Intel "Me2Cam". Yep, that's full resolution, full quality. It don't get any better than that.)

  • Mike C. (unregistered)

    "Though it may not seem to visible in the screenshot, the designer certainly went with the preferred technique of the wooden table / digital camera." I believe you mean "too visible".  Don't worry, it's a common mistake.  Nobody will hold you up to public ridicule for your inability to master simple language. Here are a couple of websites to help you:http://www.quia.com/pop/1000.html, http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/to.html

  • bowerbird (unregistered)
    Comment held for moderation.
  • Argent (unregistered) in reply to microsafe17

    I just had to take a screenshot with a cellphone, because I was installing Chinese Windows XP and needed to know what to hit on one of the setup screens...

Leave a comment on “Best of 2006: Web 0.1”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

« Return to Article