Read more.Quote:
"Stretches the Boundaries of Productivity and Entertainment"
Printable View
Read more.Quote:
"Stretches the Boundaries of Productivity and Entertainment"
That's a really nice machine in theory, but I'm baffled by that choice of gfx chip. It's the bare minimum of what you'd want for a screen of that resolution, and it'll be absolutely fine for desktop apps, web/video entertainment and so on, but the 640M would be near-useless for games at 1920x1080. At this panoramic resolution, it'll be obsolete (in games terms) very quickly indeed.
That said, of course not everyone wants games. Also, you can build your own housing for a better gfx card and plug it in, as people have done with laptops, but that would fly in the face of the all-in-one concept.
Very odd looking screen. And Windows 8 clearly doesn't know what to do with it either.
The best way to think of it is two 1280x1080 monitors with no bevel in the middle. In addition, 1280x1080 is better vertically than 1280x960 or 1280x1024 too :-) whereas we all know that 1920x1080 is annoying because we want 1920x1200!
Soooo, LG, how about making it 2800x1200 or 3840x1440 in resolution?
Totally with you here, and on the 16:10 vs 16:9, I can't stand using a 1080 now, which I never would have deemed an issue until I'd used the 16:10. I would also be happy with a single panel @ 3840x1200 since it'd be the same res as my 24"s without the bezel breaking the join.Quote:
Originally Posted by sykobee
You've piqued my curiosity - why is 1200 vertical res less annoying than 1080? Only reason I can think of is to allow you to use those 120 "extra" pixels for a menu or controls bar, but still be able to see a film in full 1080p at the same time.Quote:
Originally Posted by sykobee
Well I use a computer for more than watching movies, for which I use a TV. And PC applications are often better with more vertical resolution.Quote:
Originally Posted by crossy
Now 21:9 I can understand for TVs (especially for movies), and even gaming, as the extra FoV would be useful.
What is this 1080 nonsense. I would have hoped that in the 2nd octile of the 21st century we wo0uld have at least 1600 vertical pixels, if not a few more. My 199 euro camera can take pictures with 3240 vertical pixels. Why can't a thousand++ quid computer display them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sykobee
Funnily enough I use a TV for watching movies too - prefer my comfy chair to the one near the 'puter!Quote:
Originally Posted by bobharvey
No, what I was getting at was why a lot of folks seem to be on this "1200 is better than 1080" game - and I was wondering if there was something special about that vertical res. Like you though, when it comes to screens higher res = better in my book.
Roll on 3840x2160? ;)
Wonder how much they will overcharge for this.