Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 3rd Jun 2012 22:04 UTC
Windows So, I've been using the Windows 8 Release Preview since it came out, almost exclusively (except for work, since I'm obviously not going to rely on unfinished and untested software for that). I already knew I could get into Metro on my 11.6" ZenBook, but on my 24" desktop, things aren't looking as rosy. Here's an illustrated guide of the most pressing issues I run into, and five suggestions to address them. Instead of just complaining, let's get constructive.
Thread beginning with comment 520616
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo
by UltraZelda64 on Mon 4th Jun 2012 05:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by gmlongo"
Member since:

Yep. Exactly. I just wish high-res 16:10 screens were easier to come by, but unfortunately they seem to be succumbing to inferior (for non-multimedia/video computer usage) "high definition" 16x9 displays (which, IMO, belong only in the living room to watch your TV and movies and play your home console video games on). But unfortunately, they're infesting every single device type being developed. All in the name of "multimedia" with the convenient buzzword "HD". ;)

Gotta love bullshit buzzwords like "HD" stealing our vertical resolution--which, in my opinion, is the most important of all for computer work. So what if tiny bars are shown on the top and bottom of the screen while playing HD videos? You barely even notice them, if you even notice them at all.

In the end--I'll take more vertical space and less horizontal space for my reading pleasure, thanks. It's much easier on the eye, and is actually possible to read. Just imaging a giant book that is not separated into columns... that would be so difficult to read it's not even funny.

Edited 2012-06-04 05:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by zima on Mon 4th Jun 2012 07:50 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
zima Member since:

high-res 16:10 screens [...] succumbing to inferior [...] "high definition" 16x9 displays

Such really high res (more than 1080p, I presume) screens were always "succumbing" to "inferior" types - in the past to much more inferior types, actually.

The situation is much better than it used to be; be happy that the "HD" means widespread popularisation of quite high res screens, that you can have them very inexpensively, funded by economies of scale (which also makes large multimon setups much more accessible; plus if one monitor in such setup is rotated 90 degrees...).

And if you want to go higher than that - well, such screens were always hard to come by, and expensive. So pay up, don't expect people "subsidizing" those just yet - they're happy with HD, so that's what production is geared for.
Alternatively, wait a short decade or so... (but I bet some will still be complaining in a similar way)

Edited 2012-06-04 07:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by JPowers on Mon 4th Jun 2012 13:05 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
JPowers Member since:

I'm a developer and vertical space is very import.

My main screen is a ViewSonic VP2365WB in 1080x1920 mode. Any 80/20 split would need to be a top/bottom split or things would just look ugly and useless.

I also find this mode ideal for web browsing since I can see most of the page. It's also great for doing word processing work.

I've yet to see a review from someone running Metro on a widescreen monitor running in portrait mode.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by gmlongo
by ndrw on Tue 5th Jun 2012 16:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by gmlongo"
ndrw Member since:

Which is why iPad feels so usable. A screen of an "equivalent" 1366x768 laptop just doesn't cut it.

I often argue against Apple (in fact, I own 0 of their products) but I like that they can take step back and look how the technology fits a normal person before designing a device. Others seem follow the rule "more is better", which is not even true (sometimes "more"="still not enough" or "more"="pointless").

Reply Parent Score: 2