Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Poll

Mark your preference(s)

Gaming station full monty (complete with elaborate hardware controls and sound system)
[ 2 ] (12.5%)
Home workstation full monty (printer-scanner, music instruments and/or home cinema)
[ 3 ] (18.8%)
Modest homebox (just the absolutely necessary peripherals)
[ 1 ] (6.3%)
Laptop/netbook (hardware keyboard separate from the screen)
[ 3 ] (18.8%)
Big-screen tablet (software keyboard)
[ 1 ] (6.3%)
Smartphone
[ 3 ] (18.8%)
Gaming console with internet connection
[ 0 ] (0%)
Different devices on different occasions and for different purposes (specify in the thread)
[ 3 ] (18.8%)

Total Members Voted: 9

Topic: The Hardware Thread (Read 63001 times)

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #150 –
Quote from: ersi on
Autosync of what? Some Asus-specific cloud thing? Or app updates in Google Play?
You should be able to get it in the quick settings dropdown. Without autosync you get no e-mail, no news, no nothing (other than calls and texts). Saves your battery too, but that's not not why I do it.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #151 –
Ah, that thing. It was never on and it never occurred to me to turn it on.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #152 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
PS Obviously the keyboard is rubbish too. But you know, for a laptop keyboard it's not bad. For a thin laptop it might even be outstanding. Much better than Apple, for example.
Older ( or rather, ancient ) Apple laptops have downright nice keyboards. I've got a mid-1990s PowerBook 3400c here, the keyboard is almost Model M decent. Of course that makes the machine rather fat, but probably less than you'd expect.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #153 –
Quote from: Macallan on
Older ( or rather, ancient ) Apple laptops have downright nice keyboards. I've got a mid-1990s PowerBook 3400c here, the keyboard is almost Model M decent. Of course that makes the machine rather fat, but probably less than you'd expect.
Looks nice, except for the 3.3 kg weight. Almost three times as much as the 1.1/1.2-ish on my new laptop. :P

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #155 –
In the embarrassing stories department, I just spent about 15 minutes trying to fit a SATA cable into a SATA Express port. I thought it was a conveniently located open SATA port not completely obscured by my GPU, but apparently I originally left it open for a reason.

I suspect I'll never use this port, but I guess we'll see.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #156 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
Quote from: Macallan on
Older ( or rather, ancient ) Apple laptops have downright nice keyboards. I've got a mid-1990s PowerBook 3400c here, the keyboard is almost Model M decent. Of course that makes the machine rather fat, but probably less than you'd expect.
Looks nice, except for the 3.3 kg weight. Almost three times as much as the 1.1/1.2-ish on my new laptop. :P
Well, a full-sized keyboard does need some room. Probably takes up half of the volume.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #158 –
Today I made the mistake of commenting on Not Always Right, about the touchpad on my new laptop.

https://notalwaysright.com/new-line-enquiry/62662
Quote
They don't act the same. At least on my laptop you can't hold one button while clicking the other, so besides an inability to use "rocker gestures" I've also given up on my ability to simulate middle click by pressing both at once. I now prefer tap to click and two-finger tap to right click, whereas on my previous laptops with actual buttons I used tap to click and the buttons.

I prefer tapping because it's almost impossible to move the mouse cursor with one hand/finger while clicking with another. The buttons aren't buttons as long as you keep your finger on there. You can move the mouse cursor in the button area as long as you didn't start trying to move the mouse cursor in the button area. The results are "hilarious" from unintentionally moving the mouse to zooming. So it wouldn't surprise me if the customer were having trouble clicking the checkbox because the mouse kept moving when they tried, because they were used to positioning with the one hand while clicking with the other. So no, they could have been mildly smarter about this whole affair, but to say those kinds of buttons "act the same" is nonsense.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #159 –
Quote from: Frenzie on

Today I made the mistake of commenting on Not Always Right, about the touchpad on my new laptop.

Mistake because of the commenting atmosphere there?

Frankly, I'm surprised that the recent developments in touchpad section (of which I am left behind) are so bad. I have experience with this thing (see, there's even no line there) and it functioned just as if the buttons were there. Under the plastic cover, there actually were tactile buttons there.

Touchpad hasn't frustrated me (too much) yet, but I am quite happy with the trackpoint+mousebutton solution on this keyboard that I often carry along. Unfortunately not too many companies keep it in production these days.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #160 –
Quote from: ersi on
Mistake because of the commenting atmosphere there?
We'll see. Essentially yes, but there's also the mistake of spending time on typing something like that where you can't possibly find it ever again (thank Facebook/Disqus/etc.). Hence why I copy-pasted it here.

Quote from: ersi on
Frankly, I'm surprised that the recent developments in touchpad section (of which I am left behind) are so bad.
They aren't. Two-finger scroll is fantastic, at least in Linux (in Windows it's not only meh but also the wrong way around). Our Wacom tablet is fantastic too as a touchpad, although I only plug that thing in if I want to draw something (plus my wife wouldn't appreciate me stealing it as a generic input device).[1]

It's probably only because touchpads have become so good that some designers have started using them for everything, including being buttons. Well, plus I'm sure it's cheaper that way. You can click the bottom left and bottom right corners of the touch pad for, surprise, surprise, left and right clicking, but you can't do both at once. Perhaps on better models you can. Anyway, my touchpad doesn't frustrate me much, in spite of the lack of middle click. It's mostly redundant anyway. As for flip back/forward, right click followed by a tiny movement down and a left click is practically the same thing. But when someone posts what is effectively Apple-type marketing nonsense about it being no different, it kind of grinds my gears. It may not necessarily be worse in practice, and to a fair degree it's actually better, but one thing it does for sure is that it acts differently.
1 To be clear, using the mouse with the pen has its uses, but without the pen it's a full-fledged, terrific multifinger touchpad. It even does palm detection properly so you don't get stupid stuff happening while you're trying to use the pen.↵

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #161 –
Some people say they don't miss CD-ROM/DVD drives. To be fair, I rarely miss 'em on my laptop, but back around 2000 I used to have two drives. A DVD player and a CD-RW drive. Currently I'm watching a DVD and I'd like to rip some of my CDs at the same time. I used to be able to do that. Luckily it's a temporary concern.

No CD

Reply #162 –
My car has a CD drive. I like it. I missed it so much when I had to rent a car that had USB, AUX, Bluetooth, etc... but no CD drive.
Pity me.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #163 –
The car I sometimes drive has a touchscreen radio. Also controls at the wheel though.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #165 –
Kernel-memory-leaking Intel processor design flaw forces Linux, Windows redesign

Talking about Meltdown. Emphasis added.
Quote from: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/01/02/intel_cpu_design_flaw/
It is understood the bug is present in modern Intel processors produced in the past decade. It allows normal user programs – from database applications to JavaScript in web browsers – to discern to some extent the layout or contents of protected kernel memory areas.

The fix is to separate the kernel's memory completely from user processes using what's called Kernel Page Table Isolation, or KPTI. At one point, Forcefully Unmap Complete Kernel With Interrupt Trampolines, aka FUCKWIT, was mulled by the Linux kernel team, giving you an idea of how annoying this has been for the developers.

At the same time elsewhere,
Quote from: Linus Torvalds, https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/1/3/797
I think somebody inside of Intel needs to really take a long hard look at their CPU's, and actually admit that they have issues [...] Or is Intel basically saying "we are committed to selling you shit forever and ever, and never fixing anything"?

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #166 –
The first "affordable" 5k monitor has arrived: https://tweakers.net/pricewatch/1130227/iiyama-prolite-xb2779qqs-s1-zilver.html

The 27" Iiyama ProLite XB2779QQS-S1 is about €800 and can be connected with DP 1.3.

I wonder how the price will develop. In any case I'm glad the many years of 16:9 FullHD hell are finally behind us. It's a pity we're still on 16:9 but at the increased sharpness it matters less.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #168 –
Things seemed to be moving nicely in the right directly with the mass market appeal of 1920x1200 displays around '08 when suddenly they disappeared and it was all 1920x1080. On laptop screens the decrease in resolution and screen estate was even worse. I had no upgrade path for when my '07 monitor would break.

2560x1440 on 27 inch? Possible, but I find 27 inch a bit large.

Luckily when my monitor did break the Dell Dell P2415Q had just been released, making an actual upgrade (rather than a replacement) an option.

Now I'm not one of those people who are saying things like "standing still is going backwards" or whatever, but the simple fact is that we had better stuff around '08/'09 than in 2012.

The best laptop screen I've had was in '04. My current one is pretty decent too. Everyone's always weirdly obsessed with how bright they can go, but my current one can go really nice and dim so it doesn't blind you.

Anyway, tablets are mostly nicer than desktop monitors, which is a thorn in my eye for something otherwise so unusable.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #169 –
Quote from: Barulheira on
Quote from: Frenzie on
16:9 FullHD hell
What the hell are you talking about?
He is probably talking about PPI and a few other parameters.

I have no idea why 4:3 aspect ratio would be preferable to 16:9 as a matter of principle or strong opinion. Different aspect ratios serve different purposes. I like 16:9 very much because, when turned upright, it resembles a book page and is excellent for proofreading. Horizontally it generally accommodates two written pages neatly and 21:9 monitor accommodates even more and is thus good for translating or other tasks that require several windows side by side.

And videos, they mostly come with 16:9 ratio, while classy movies sometimes have 21:9, so such monitors are good for most movies. Maybe 4:3 is also good for something, but to me it only reminds of the way-too-long era when I had a 800x600 monitor.

And yes, I have monitors with all these aspect ratios, so my opinion should count.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #170 –
Quote from: ersi on
I have no idea why 4:3 aspect ratio would be preferable to 16:9 as a matter of principle or strong opinion. Different aspect ratios serve different purposes.
1920x1200 is 16:10, not 4:3.

Anyway, 16:9 is alright in UHD. I said 16:9 FullHD hell, while explicitly also including the 16:9 resolution 2560x1440. Even saying 16:9 FullHD hell is slightly dramatic of course, but that doesn't change the fact that we had superior run of the mill displays in the late '00s compared to the early '10s on pretty much all accounts. Price, size, and picture quality were all better.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #171 –
It sounds especially dramatic for those who were left behind of the developements of the late '00s, such as myself. To me this era was hell:



And it lasted way too long. I began looking for an upgrade only a few years ago.

Where I live, there are some places to obtain turn-of-the-millennium monitors for free. I'm sure something like this would apply to late '00s monitors also, if you know where to look.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #172 –
A run of the mill 17" CRT from around 2000 is an absolutely beautiful thing. 75 Hz or 85 Hz with high-res (e.g., 1600x1200) no problem, coupled with amazing colors. In the higher price segment Sony also has some marvelous flatscreen CRTs, available in 16:9 as well.

I'd generally pick an LCD over a CRT, but mainly for size, weight, and to a lesser extent energy use considerations. Typical LCDs don't solve the main problem at all: backlit as opposed to reflective. (There is such a thing as reflective LCDs, but apparently no one thinks it would sell.)

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #173 –
Quote from: Frenzie on
A run of the mill 17" CRT from around 2000 is an absolutely beautiful thing.
Yes, if you like curves. But those curves also make it a waste of space. To me it was hell because the only place where those monitors could sit safely was on the desk, but on the desk they are too close up your face, particularly if the desk is against the wall. I prefer the screen at least as far away from my eyes as my hand can reach.

That said, I kind of liked the all-in-one form factor of G3 era Macs. I considered buying one for a while, but never did. Now used ones can be had for 20 euros or less and I just might get one.

Re: The Hardware Thread

Reply #174 –
Quote from: ersi on
Yes, if you like curves.
I like that the color accuracy and liveliness on CRTs from the 1980s onward is stellar. If you put a TN LCD side by side with a CRT the difference is astounding. A VA LCD is pretty good and an IPS LCD might be able to match it for colors (not grays and blacks).

Quote from: ersi on
To me it was hell because the only place where those monitors could sit safely was on the desk, but on the desk they are too close up your face, particularly if the desk is against the wall. I prefer the screen at least as far away from my eyes as my hand can reach.
That's a pretty sad desk. :) But obviously my monitor arm could never work with a CRT; like I said I think LCDs are definitely worth it for size and weight. But back in the '90s literally almost every single display was superior in picture quality.

(Possible exception for plasma screens, at least when new. But those are also all but gone now. Probably because they suffered from burn-in as bad as 1980s computer CRTs.)

Btw, Apple always (?) used high-quality Sony Trinitrons in their better monitors.