 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> Apparently I'm just weird. I can't really tell the difference between
> the old 300dpi LaserJet 6P, the 600dpi LaserJet 4100, and the 1200dpi
> Xerox Phaser.
Plain old black-and-white text. It was pretty easy to see. Enough that I was
impressed with the quality of the 1200dpi laser printer.
> Now, see, to my eyes the Computer Modern fonts look much, much better
> than anything any other system ever produces. (Certainly TeX beats the
> **** out of anything Word produces!)
Sure, but that's because Word is doing it on the fly, as you type. Any
decent typesetting system is going to give you nicer-looking output.
You can go to journals written in the 90s or so, and see who had their
papers typeset and who wrote it themselves with TeX just by looking at the
poor spacing and the fonts with bad balances of black and white and such.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> But lots of modern screen savers display static or nearly static images...
Huh. I never saw a nearly-static screen saver, I guess.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka wrote:
> It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.
You know, I'm realizing I've been getting back aches lately. I think part of
it is my new LCDs are so much flatter than my old CRT they're another foot
away, and I start leaning forward to see them clearly. :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>> But lots of modern screen savers display static or nearly static
>> images...
>
> Huh. I never saw a nearly-static screen saver, I guess.
For example, there's that popular one that shows your desktop, but with
a distorting lense rolling over it. So 80% of the screen isn't changing,
just the 20% of it under the lense...
Just one small example. I've seen lots of Linux screen savers which
gradually draw stuff over the period of a minute or so. I guess that's
not so bad, because *what* they draw is random, so it'll only ever be on
the screen for a minute or two.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> For example, there's that popular one that shows your desktop, but with
> a distorting lense rolling over it. So 80% of the screen isn't changing,
> just the 20% of it under the lense...
Yeah, OK.
Come to think of it, I've seen a number of screen savers that when they
started I thought "now why in the world if I'm locking my screen would I
want to show everyone what it says like that?" :-)
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New wrote:
> Come to think of it, I've seen a number of screen savers that when they
> started I thought "now why in the world if I'm locking my screen would I
> want to show everyone what it says like that?" :-)
Hmm, yes...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 12:49:52 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 19:20:26 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>
>>> As I say, everybody's shouting about 2x the resolution as if it's some
>>> big deal or something.
>>>
>>> Now, if it was 10x the resolution, that would seem more impressive...
>>
>> It is actually a big deal when you have a big screen. Our 16:9
>> projection screen measures 106" diagonally, and there is a *huge*
>> improvement between SD and HD on it.
>
> Heh. And my brother has his stuff all hooked up to a projector giving
> him a 9 foot diagonal picture. Pretty cool to play video game football
> when the players are literally larger than life size.
With our sound system, it's just like going to the cinema - except we can
pause to get more popcorn. And don't have the crying babies that some
parents bring with because they can't get a sitter.
Oh, and our floor isn't sticky. :-)
On the downside, had to replace the bulb in the projector last weekend.
Had a spare on hand, but those bulbs are not cheap. :-/
But yeah, our PS3 is connected to it, so I end up playing the occasional
game on that screen. It's really nice - even my wife likes it, and she
initially thought the idea was ridiculous, but she now admits freely that
it was a good idea. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 20:44:58 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
> (Not that modern "screen savers" actually save your screen...)
If they use DPMS, they sure do. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> With our sound system, it's just like going to the cinema
My brother had movie theatre seats for a while too, until he realized a
couch was more comfortable anyway. It was amusing, tho. I think he still
has them in storage.
> On the downside, had to replace the bulb in the projector last weekend.
> Had a spare on hand, but those bulbs are not cheap. :-/
That they aren't!
> But yeah, our PS3 is connected to it, so I end up playing the occasional
> game on that screen. It's really nice - even my wife likes it, and she
> initially thought the idea was ridiculous, but she now admits freely that
> it was a good idea. :-)
Yeah. And a wii is pretty spectacular too when you're not looking at a
tennis court that's 20" wide.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Linux: Now bringing the quality and usability of
open source desktop apps to your personal electronics.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka escreveu:
> Am 26.04.2010 21:33, schrieb Warp:
>> Le_Forgeron<jgr### [at] free fr> wrote:
>>> Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
>>> The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.
>>
>> Not to talk about contrast...
>>
>> Also, CRTs could be looked at from about any direction and it would
>> always look exactly as good. Only in the last few years LCDs are
>> *approaching* that (many still have problems when viewed from above
>> or below).
>>
>> Then there are the dead pixels, which plagued LCDs for many, many
>> years
>> (only relatively recently LCD vendors have started guaranteeing no dead
>> pixels).
>
> Stick to CRTs if you like - I do prefer to have room enough on my desk
> for /two/ displays with 24" @16:9 and 19" @4:3 size (effective image
> diagonal, not nominal tube size), both presenting their image perfectly
> flat and undistorted, with perfectly sharp pixels, no analog signal
> distortion or beam focus problems, no "pumping" effect with brightness
> changes, no moiree effects with the X11 login screen, less dust
> accumulating on the display, less eye strain from flicker - and no risk
> of my desk collapsing under the displays' sheer weight.
>
> It's all a question of priorities. Yours may vary.
thank you. Saved my time. :)
--
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
