Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 17:22 UTC
Google As most of you will know, a common problem for any new operating system is hardware support. Drivers don't grow on trees, and usually need to be written by manufacturers, which costs time and money. Luckily for Chrome OS, it uses the Linux kernel which makes the hardware support question far less problematic. Still, when it comes to printers, the situation is different, and here, Google is trying to achieve something which should've been done ages ago.
Thread beginning with comment 397520
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 19:02 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Reading on a computer screen becomes uncomfortable for me after ~20 minutes, especially the type of intense reading that is required to understand highly scientific articles like these.

Agreed. And this is a problem that doesn't seem go get talked about that much which is well worth solving.

So... what is it about reading on the screen that is bad? A couple of things that come to my mind are:

1. White backgrounds. (Hi, OSNews.com!)

2. Unnatural aspect ratios. 16:10 is nice for watching movies, I guess. But for reading, wouldn't you prefer 16:10? Or maybe narrower?

3. Portability. Ergonomics. What if the computer looked and felt like a paperback novel? (That's just a starting point, of course.)

4. What else? Thom?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by UltraZelda64 on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 20:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
UltraZelda64 Member since:
2006-12-05

1. White backgrounds. (Hi, OSNews.com!)

Agreed... white backgrounds are too bright and are a pain in the ass, can cause headaches, etc., but to be fair I think I've got so used to them by now that they don't (usually) bother me as much. I still hate them, though. They're even worse if you leave your monitor's brightness and contrast to their ridiculously-high default levels.

2. Unnatural aspect ratios. 16:10 is nice for watching movies, I guess. But for reading, wouldn't you prefer 16:10? Or maybe narrower?

Huh? Once I switched to a 20" 16:10 monitor on my desktop, I'd never go back. I miss my 19" CRT for some things (mostly the ability to switch resolutions natively, and certain wallpapers that were designed for them) but widescreen has some benefits that it lacked. There's much more room.

Sure, when sitting right in front of the monitor at a normal desktop distance you can't always see the entire screen if you've got a big monitor, but what's moving your eyes from window to window going to hurt? The same could probably be said of a standard (non-widescreen) 22-24" CRT.

On the other hand, if by widescreen you mean 16:9 (like Apple seems to have switched all their iMacs with), then I agree with you... that belongs nowhere but on a display meant for purely for watching widescreen movies and possibly modern, widescreen-designed video games. NEVER on a computer, where IMO you need MORE room, not less.

I'm thinking of upgrading to a 22-24 inch widescreen with the next-higher resolution (1920x1200)... my biggest problem at this point is actually resolution, not aspect ratio. Even on small screens (like small laptops and netbooks), the problem seems to be resolution rather than aspect ratio.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by FooBarWidget on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 22:13 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
FooBarWidget Member since:
2005-11-11

"Agreed... white backgrounds are too bright and are a pain in the ass, can cause headaches, etc."

And nobody has thought of using this little button called "monitor brightness"?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 20:16 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

I don't think I understand your post at all.

1. White backgrounds. (Hi, OSNews.com!)

What is better for the eye? I really don't know the answer. If you had asked me, I would have said white

2. Unnatural aspect ratios. 16:10 is nice for watching movies, I guess. But for reading, wouldn't you prefer 16:10? Or maybe narrower?


What would you prefer? I think you accidentally said 16:10 twice. Or maybe you inverted your wording, and you meant to say " you wouldn't prefer" instead of " wouldn't you prefer".

3. Portability. Ergonomics. What if the computer looked and felt like a paperback novel? (That's just a starting point, of course.)


Uhm... Isn't that kindle or Nook? Or do they not go far enough?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by sbenitezb on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 21:29 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

1. White backgrounds. (Hi, OSNews.com!)
What is better for the eye? I really don't know the answer. If you had asked me, I would have said white


Brownish. Reflects less light than plain white.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 20:54 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

2. Unnatural aspect ratios. 16:10 is nice for watching movies, I guess. But for reading, wouldn't you prefer 16:10? Or maybe narrower?

Oops. How about:

2. Unnatural aspect ratios. 16:10 is nice for watching movies, I guess. But for reading, wouldn't you prefer 10:16? Or maybe narrower?

Edited 2009-12-02 20:54 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 21:59 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

4. What else? Thom?


The single biggest problem?

The couch. The bed. The bathroom. While you could technically use a laptop for that, a laptop severely limits the number of positions you can sit, hang, chill, or lay down in.

A simple paper book or printed scientific article can be read in any darn position that I may find comfortable, while a laptop forces you in, say, a small number of positions. That's annoying.

EDIT: Your comment does read like I am a problem with reading from screens ;) .

Edited 2009-12-02 22:00 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by vivainio on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 22:05 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

The single biggest problem?

The couch. The bed. The bathroom. While you could technically use a laptop for that, a laptop severely limits the number of positions you can sit, hang, chill, or lay down in.


Also, if you happen to have a wife/gf/equivalent, it seems that reading a book annoys her much less than sitting on a computer. Even if you would be reading about exactly the same thing.

Go figure.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[6]: Comment by Kroc
by sbergman27 on Wed 2nd Dec 2009 22:08 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by Kroc"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

The couch. The bed. The bathroom. While you could technically use a laptop for that, a laptop severely limits the number of positions you can sit, hang, chill, or lay down in. A simple paper book or printed scientific article can be read in any darn position that I may find comfortable, while a laptop forces you.

Well, that's kinda what I was getting at with the paperback form-factor comment. Though I will note that at 46, I'm finding naproxen sodium to be somewhat helpful with aches and pains. Especially those back aches one gets after long sessions with the bathroom laptop.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by CrLf on Thu 3rd Dec 2009 21:56 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
CrLf Member since:
2006-01-03

1. White backgrounds. (Hi, OSNews.com!)


I find black backgrounds much worse. After just a minute or two I'm already seeing horizontal stripes everywhere I look.

Reply Parent Score: 3