7 ms·

Why pay $1,299 for a thin client OS even if it's running thick client hardware? I can run a browser and so much more in a macbook air or thinkpad in the same pr

by j-b 14y ago

Why pay $1,299 for a thin client OS even if it's running thick client hardware? I can run a browser and so much more in a macbook air or thinkpad in the same price range.

dman 14y ago
To encourage a world where a) companies build desirable hardware b) companies realise having a good screen is a feature c) companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios
- kunai 14y ago
  > companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios Let's hope Lenovo takes a look at this. I'd love a Thinkpad with a high-res screen, 3:2 display, and of course, the venerable TrackPoint and keyboard. Touchscreen is a nice novelty feature but really isn't required.
  - Zak 14y ago
    I'd rather have 4:3 or even 5:4, but I'll take any steps in the direction of square as positive.
    - nigma 14y ago
      I couldn't agree more. I'm currently on an upgraded Thinkpad T61p with 1680x1050 and I'm reluctant to change it to a newer machine because of the 16:9 screens padded with tall plastic border that are available in most notebooks nowadays. I really hope that hardware makers will finally realize that the primary reason for buying a notebook is not for watching movies on a 15" screen.
      - Zak 14y ago
        Did you know you can put a 14" standard-aspect T61 motherboard in a 15" T60p chassis with a 1600x1200 IPS panel? Did you know that if you want to spend $400 or so, or you're really good at shopping on ebay, you can upgrade that to 2048x1536?
    - Shish2k 14y ago
      If tall thin windows are better, why not have a widescreen with two windows side by side?
      - Zak 14y ago
        I don't especially want a single tall, thin window for code. 5:4 is still wider than it is tall. My usual development environment is Emacs with two panes (Emacs calls them windows for historical reasons) side by side on 4:3. My thinking is that a screen that's close to square works better for a wider range of tasks than one that's very oblong. A rotating oblong screen that could be tall or wide might work nicely for a lot of situations too, but it would be hard to implement well on a laptop.
      - lmm 14y ago
        What I want is as many vertical pixels as possible; this is the first new screen I've seen that's got more than my 10-year-old CRT (1536). (At this point some wag is going to suggest portrait mode, but I've never seen a laptop with a portrait screen that can be used at the same time as the keyboard).
        Zak 14y ago
        Apple's 13 and 15 inch retina Macbook Pro models have 1600 and 1800, respectively.
      - rplnt 14y ago
        Because there's no space / it would be too small. We're talking about sub-15" display here. So while wide display is great in 22"+, it sucks for everything (except movies maybe) on smaller devices.
  - kunai 14y ago
    > I'll take any steps in the direction of square as positive If someone proposes a Kickstarter project for a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard, I'll be the first to hop on. Or maybe I should go ahead and make that Kickstarter project a reality instead of waiting for someone to.
    - rdl 14y ago
      Dell Precision Mobile Workstation M6700? It's got a pointing stick and a decent keyboard, high res 17" screen (although, widescreen), solid construction, etc.
    - gmkoliver 14y ago
      a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard The lack of something like this is why I'm still using a 7 year old Thinkpad.
- gilgoomesh 14y ago
  > companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios I hear this complaint a lot and I think it's based on a flawed premise. Taller aspects might be better on very small screens that only fill tiny portions of your vision but on bigger screens -- the sort you should be using if you're working regularly on a computer -- you want wider not taller. It's the only way to usefully use your field of view. This is why wider aspects exist. On my 16:9 aspect 27" desktop screen, my vision is practically filled in the vertical direction -- it is easier to glance to the horizontal edges than the vertical ones. I would use more horizontal space before I used more vertical. And this is the point of wider aspects -- they use your eyes better. If you buy three screens for your desktop, you don't stack them vertically -- you arrange them horizontally so you can actually see them. People who keep asking for squarer displays for work should simply get bigger displays and stop pretending that a 13" laptop display is ever a good choice for a working display. Frankly, anything sub 24" is not a working environment. Anything smaller is either (a) something you use occasionally when you're not at your desk or (b) for people who are not working.
  - kunai 14y ago
    May be true for desktops, but if you have ever tried to code on a 1366x768 14" laptop display, you'll agree. 8:5/16:10 or even 3:2 fill the horizontal field of view well while also delivering more vertical space. Even if 16:9 is theoretically better, why shouldn't we have a choice? Every notebook computer out there besides Apple has a 16:9 display, and I'm sick of it, and many others are as well. At least offer us more than one choice.
    - jimmaswell 14y ago
      I use Visual Studio on a 1360x768 display all the time, and it's not so bad. It does encourage writing the code better because you can't read large chunks at once.
      - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
        I heard a story where one famous computer scientist (Dijkstra, McCarthy, Hoare, or Knuth?) said something about how using punch cards encourages writing code better because the compile/debug loop is so long and annoying.
Zak 14y ago
This has a far better screen than either of those objectively and a more preferable aspect ratio for many of us subjectively. Installing arbitrary Linux distributions on Chromebooks has been trivial in the past and almost certainly remains so with this one. Many people here would install their Linux distribution of choice on whatever laptop they bought anyway, so the shipping OS is a non-issue.
- lawnchair_larry 14y ago
  And Linux would boot at native resolution, making the contents of your screen microscopic and useless. Linux isn't ready for High DPI.
  - sbrother 14y ago
    I'd argue that Unity looks much, much better on high DPI. I run it on an old crappy 1024x768 and a newer 1920x1080 of around the same size, and the icons/launcher actually look sane at almost double the DPI of the older screen. Unity makes the low-DPI computer look (and feel) like a toy, but I like it a lot on my new computer. I'd agree with you if you're running Gnome 2, or KDE, though.
    - tr4656 14y ago
      Well the thing is that most people don't prefer Unity and neither do I. I don't really think that there are so many devs using Unity either.
      - CrazedGeek 14y ago
        Who is "most people", exactly?
  - lmm 14y ago
    I'm ready. I realise some people aren't, but I'm young with good vision; "microscopic" is exactly what I want. I'm buying the extra pixels so I can fit more on my screen, not so I can fit the same stuff with better-rounded edges.

by j-b 14y ago

Why pay $1,299 for a thin client OS even if it's running thick client hardware? I can run a browser and so much more in a macbook air or thinkpad in the same price range.

dman 14y ago

To encourage a world where a) companies build desirable hardware b) companies realise having a good screen is a feature c) companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios

kunai 14y ago
> companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios Let's hope Lenovo takes a look at this. I'd love a Thinkpad with a high-res screen, 3:2 display, and of course, the venerable TrackPoint and keyboard. Touchscreen is a nice novelty feature but really isn't required.
- Zak 14y ago
  I'd rather have 4:3 or even 5:4, but I'll take any steps in the direction of square as positive.
  - nigma 14y ago
    I couldn't agree more. I'm currently on an upgraded Thinkpad T61p with 1680x1050 and I'm reluctant to change it to a newer machine because of the 16:9 screens padded with tall plastic border that are available in most notebooks nowadays. I really hope that hardware makers will finally realize that the primary reason for buying a notebook is not for watching movies on a 15" screen.
    - Zak 14y ago
      Did you know you can put a 14" standard-aspect T61 motherboard in a 15" T60p chassis with a 1600x1200 IPS panel? Did you know that if you want to spend $400 or so, or you're really good at shopping on ebay, you can upgrade that to 2048x1536?
  - Shish2k 14y ago
    If tall thin windows are better, why not have a widescreen with two windows side by side?
    - Zak 14y ago
      I don't especially want a single tall, thin window for code. 5:4 is still wider than it is tall. My usual development environment is Emacs with two panes (Emacs calls them windows for historical reasons) side by side on 4:3. My thinking is that a screen that's close to square works better for a wider range of tasks than one that's very oblong. A rotating oblong screen that could be tall or wide might work nicely for a lot of situations too, but it would be hard to implement well on a laptop.
    - lmm 14y ago
      What I want is as many vertical pixels as possible; this is the first new screen I've seen that's got more than my 10-year-old CRT (1536). (At this point some wag is going to suggest portrait mode, but I've never seen a laptop with a portrait screen that can be used at the same time as the keyboard).
      - Zak 14y ago
        Apple's 13 and 15 inch retina Macbook Pro models have 1600 and 1800, respectively.
    - rplnt 14y ago
      Because there's no space / it would be too small. We're talking about sub-15" display here. So while wide display is great in 22"+, it sucks for everything (except movies maybe) on smaller devices.
- kunai 14y ago
  > I'll take any steps in the direction of square as positive If someone proposes a Kickstarter project for a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard, I'll be the first to hop on. Or maybe I should go ahead and make that Kickstarter project a reality instead of waiting for someone to.
  - rdl 14y ago
    Dell Precision Mobile Workstation M6700? It's got a pointing stick and a decent keyboard, high res 17" screen (although, widescreen), solid construction, etc.
  - gmkoliver 14y ago
    a mobile developer workstation with a solid design, 4:3 high-res screen, pointing stick, and great keyboard The lack of something like this is why I'm still using a 7 year old Thinkpad.
gilgoomesh 14y ago
> companies build screens with more code friendly aspect ratios I hear this complaint a lot and I think it's based on a flawed premise. Taller aspects might be better on very small screens that only fill tiny portions of your vision but on bigger screens -- the sort you should be using if you're working regularly on a computer -- you want wider not taller. It's the only way to usefully use your field of view. This is why wider aspects exist. On my 16:9 aspect 27" desktop screen, my vision is practically filled in the vertical direction -- it is easier to glance to the horizontal edges than the vertical ones. I would use more horizontal space before I used more vertical. And this is the point of wider aspects -- they use your eyes better. If you buy three screens for your desktop, you don't stack them vertically -- you arrange them horizontally so you can actually see them. People who keep asking for squarer displays for work should simply get bigger displays and stop pretending that a 13" laptop display is ever a good choice for a working display. Frankly, anything sub 24" is not a working environment. Anything smaller is either (a) something you use occasionally when you're not at your desk or (b) for people who are not working.
- kunai 14y ago
  May be true for desktops, but if you have ever tried to code on a 1366x768 14" laptop display, you'll agree. 8:5/16:10 or even 3:2 fill the horizontal field of view well while also delivering more vertical space. Even if 16:9 is theoretically better, why shouldn't we have a choice? Every notebook computer out there besides Apple has a 16:9 display, and I'm sick of it, and many others are as well. At least offer us more than one choice.
  - jimmaswell 14y ago
    I use Visual Studio on a 1360x768 display all the time, and it's not so bad. It does encourage writing the code better because you can't read large chunks at once.
    - seanmcdirmid 14y ago
      I heard a story where one famous computer scientist (Dijkstra, McCarthy, Hoare, or Knuth?) said something about how using punch cards encourages writing code better because the compile/debug loop is so long and annoying.

Zak 14y ago

This has a far better screen than either of those objectively and a more preferable aspect ratio for many of us subjectively. Installing arbitrary Linux distributions on Chromebooks has been trivial in the past and almost certainly remains so with this one. Many people here would install their Linux distribution of choice on whatever laptop they bought anyway, so the shipping OS is a non-issue.

lawnchair_larry 14y ago
And Linux would boot at native resolution, making the contents of your screen microscopic and useless. Linux isn't ready for High DPI.
- sbrother 14y ago
  I'd argue that Unity looks much, much better on high DPI. I run it on an old crappy 1024x768 and a newer 1920x1080 of around the same size, and the icons/launcher actually look sane at almost double the DPI of the older screen. Unity makes the low-DPI computer look (and feel) like a toy, but I like it a lot on my new computer. I'd agree with you if you're running Gnome 2, or KDE, though.
  - tr4656 14y ago
    Well the thing is that most people don't prefer Unity and neither do I. I don't really think that there are so many devs using Unity either.
    - CrazedGeek 14y ago
      Who is "most people", exactly?
- lmm 14y ago
  I'm ready. I realise some people aren't, but I'm young with good vision; "microscopic" is exactly what I want. I'm buying the extra pixels so I can fit more on my screen, not so I can fit the same stuff with better-rounded edges.