Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

16.5-inch LCD for Notebook PC 91

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-huge dept.
An Anonymous reader dropped us a note saying that Samsung has introduced a 16.5-inch LCD with a 4:3 aspect ratio for notebook PC. The first generation of 15" laptops looked like tanks- but it really would be smooth to have a super thin (I've been tapping on a VAIO lately) laptop with that size screen. Maybe in a few years.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

16.5-inch LCD for Notebook PC More

16.5-inch LCD for Notebook PC

Comments Filter:
  • don't forget about the European A4 standard, which is signifigantly longer (although about the same width...)
  • Hmm... that wouldn't even be that hard either. Use an embeddable PC board, maybe an Aaeon PCM-5894 with a portable K6-2 233Mhz (fastest possible), with 64 or 128megs RAM. need a new graphics display board though, the on-board one is only 1024x768 @ 64K colors. Maybe there's another Little Board form factor board with a better gfx controller.

    Anyways, add in a hard drive, then you just need a screen. Ah, there's all those catalogs. Well, here're display kits from 9.4" to 42" in the Inside Technology catalog. 1998 version, though. I'll have to get all those companies to send me new ones, I need updated prices (getting a new computer soon, considering a wearable, otherwise dual celerons). There's a 21" plasma display. The largest TFT listed is 12.1", but I'm sure there are larger ones now. If not, use plasma, oh well.

    The whole system would be really expensive, though, with that screen. Without the screen, it's under a thousand, but the screen's going to be really expensive. Then you need a power supply. The board only needs about 50W with the K6-2, with another gfx board it'd probably be more like 70W. Voltage levels are unfortunately unlisted here for the screens. Anyone else know how much a 21" plasma screen would use? or a 21" TFT?

    The entire unit would be the width, etc. of the screen, which is about .5" thick (just a guess, could be thinner). add in the Little Board, and it's another half inch or so. with another video board, that's another inch (could be less with a board with connectors on the side). So, it'd be about 2" thick, allowing for a case. That also leaves room for such items as blueprints/paper/paints/pencils/etc. in a pocket.

    As an estimate, I'd put the entire unit at 4000, assuming you can build the thing yourself. The hardest part would be the case, since that's gotta be the right size/shape and designed well to boot. But, if you're in college, then there's tons of people around, some of which will know how to make plastic cases, especially if you offer monetary
    incentive.

    A custom designed single board computer would do a better job, and if a company wanted to sell these, at a better price too (at least above a couple thousand units, and depending on what is removed/added). A custom screen would be just the same. Then it could be just the right size though.

    Well, I've finished my off topic rant for the day. Hope someone learned something from my little foray back into my SBC catalogs. I've gotta admit, I'm really glad I asked for ALL the companies that make SBCs to send me info. That's the way to go about it if you want real info. If you don't buy something, of course, they won't send you them again, although one of them recently proved me wrong on that one. Agh, ranting again. Sorry.
    ---
  • Who can forget the Compaq Portables [ncsc.dni.us]....
    the slide-out panels on the sides were cool, especially since you could shove the power cord in there.

    Forget the fact, though, that the "Portable" is far larger than the case of my desktop machine... don't try hauling this thing onto a plane.
  • Close: Most Hollywood movies have aspect ratios of 1.85:1 to 2.35:1. 16x9 is 1.78x1. However, given overscan and some automatic reframing, 16x9 sets can display full resolution DVD _AS LONG AS THE DVD WAS ANAMORPHICALLY ENHANCED!!!_ Elsewise, if the disk was _NOT_ anamorphically enhanced, you do _NOT_ get the enhanced DVD resolution on the widescreen set. IIRC, displaying anamorphic 16x9 discs as widescreen on a 4x3 set requires your DVD to perform a 4:3 pulldown and drop a largish percentage of resolution on the fly. Some older machines don't do this well, and anamorphically-enhanced discs look quite bad on those early decks.

    It took me awhile to actually figure this out, but search dejanews in alt.video.dvd for links to the full anamorphic story: it's worth it.

    btw: I will _not_ purchase a movie that was shot in widescreen which is not anamorphically-enhanced. I may rent, but I won't buy. This pisses me off: the Kubrick box set is mega-shite for this reason. Doesn't hurt that they didn't bother to remix the audio masters to an up-to-date format (many of the Kubrick discs are matted w/Dolby Digital MONO.. Sheesh guys, couldn't you even at least try to emulate a theater soundfield? I _hate_ my receivers DSP modes....)
  • I'm also working with a sony VAIO, it's been keeping me in touch wonderfully while I've been studying abroad in France this summer. It has a 10.4" screen, does 1024x768 @ 16bit, came with 64 megs of RAM, a 300 mhz processor, and a 6 gig harddrive, all for just under $2000. The damn thing is 0.9" thick and weighs in under 3 lbs. *with* the battery.

    Personally, I don't see how much smaller notebook computers can become. If it was any thinner, I couldn't plug a PCMCIA card into it (it only has room for one card) and if it were any smaller I couldn't type comfortably on it (it's warm pourrage right now) Most of the larger parts are already external, e.g. the floppy drive and all of the standard I/O ports (although it has one USB as well) because they would take up too much real estate otherwise. It actually works out better that way, since it's like a free port replicator that comes with the machine.

    I think that laptops will not be able to shrink appriciably past what is sitting in front of me right now, due to interface limitations. A wearable computer would be excellent, but without a keyboard we're going to have to come up with an easy, convenient, and flexible means for people to find new ways of interacting with computers first.

    Voice won't do it, I think much faster than I type, and who want's to program by spelling out variables and procedure calls? Single-handed keyboards don't appeal to me, I don't need to learn a new way to get carpal-tunnel syndrome. Following my eyeball around on the screen would be interesting, but how would you click? Blinking would look silly after awhile. Pen based with decent hand-recognition would be useful, but my hard gets tired whenever I have to write more than a page, I don't think long computing sessions would be very nice. At least pen recognition would half the size of the computer, since you'd only need the screen (and a cover of course).

    In the meantime, all of my communication, information gathering, and programming needs are taken care of my "ultra-portable". I can even play Q2 rather descently (ok, so we still have to wait for descent video acceleration in a laptop) so I'm off to relieve some post-exam stress gib'in and cap'in...
  • Absolutely correct M_F_A_C. Why bother with some huge damned screen when you can just plug a pair of LCD glasses into a portable base unit? Sure it will be expensive, but probably just as much as a hit as a huge LCD screen. You can't show it to anyone else (multiple goggle hookups would be neat if everyone has a pair) unless you plugged into a monitor, but think of all the weight and battery power that this would save. The technology is already out there in those gaming goggles, I'm just surprised that no one has started to make a laptop using these. Do they get painful after extended use? Not reliable? Anyone know?
  • what resolution were you running it at? a "feature" of a lot of the dell lcd's is that they only display properly at 1024x786
  • In all this complaining about 16.5 inch screens being too big for a portable computer, people seem to be forgetting that there is a real difference between a notebook computer and a portable computer. Think back to the old Compaq luggables. Those were portable, but certainly not notebook-sized. Whether such a screen is too big really depends on the use for which you intend it. If you want something to type into on the plane then it might be too big, but if you're looking for a desktop replacement that you can take from place to place without pulling 15 different cables and carrying 12 different parts then this is great.
  • On my 21" monitor I stay at least 4/5 feet from the monitor and the keyboard is 2/3 feet from the monitor.

    Is this right? Are you saying 4-5 feet/2-3 feet? Or are you meaning 0.8 feet and 0.6 feet (respectively)? I am only asking this, because, right now, my face is maybe two feet from my 21 inch monitor, and the keyboard is about one foot away...
  • You know, I support this, but from a different angle.

    Being ultra portable would be great - but my take on things is that it seems each year they come out with one of two things regarding laptop screens: Higher res, or bigger display. What does this get us? HIGHER PRICES! Why?

    Because they can't get the yield up to a point where the screens don't have bad pixels on large runs, because of various factors (simply increasing size or density increases the statistical chances of failure, for one). So we pay more for these screens, then we bitch because laptop either don't come down in price, or that they go up in price (not to mention every year a new cpu comes out, so that has to go in the laptop as well)...

    Laptops would be a great thing for school use, at nearly every grade level - if they didn't cost so much. For most tasks (think about it - it is true!), higher resolutions/bigger screens/faster processors aren't needed! But you have no choice when you buy a new laptop.

    I know some of you will think/say "Go away, whiner - buy a laptop off of Ebay if you are so hard up for money!"...

    The truth is, I have bought a laptop off of Ebay that suits my needs (486 DX2 50, 24 meg ram, 1 gig drive, sound, 10 inch double scan LCD - cost $350!) - however, I don't get a warranty, support, or much in the way of upgradability. And why should I spend more on a laptop (new or used!) when next year it will be discontinued by the manufacturer or obsolete?!

    I want to buy a new laptop that has a perfect 10-12 inch TFT display, with a low power Pentium 120 in it. This would be enough to do what is normally needed by a laptop. It should be cheap (around $500.00), have a long battery life (8 hours), and modular enough that I don't have to stick to a single manufacturer for any parts (for repair or upgradability - this alone would be nice to see in laptops today!).

    We have the technology for this today - why the fuck aren't we using it?
  • Desktop! I dohn neehd noh steekin desktop!

    My desk at home is a full 8 feet wide and 24 inches deep, made of 2x4 (support), 4x4 (legs) and 1x12 (top) - a smaller piece of 1x12 exists for my keyboard and mouse. I built this thing because I didn't have enough room for my three machines - and I needed it solid so I could pile so much on it.

    I don't know about you, but I get a kick when I see advertisements and magazine articles that seem to support the idea that a computer is supposed to be "pretty" and blend in with the surroundings (fuckin' designers!). If I could afford a Thinking Machines Blinkin' Lights Special, I would have that over the latest Uber-Cool Case...

    Actually, what I have been thinking about doing is getting rid of my cases and building some kind of slide rack system for the boards - make the entire affair an open-air design, and say "Screw the FCC!"
  • IBM's got, what, 150dpi in production now? I think their 770 13.8" screen is 1280x1024, and they've got a lot of R&D invested in fine dot-pitch display technology....
  • Yes, everything changes, but then again it doesn't. Think about it: is anyone ever gonna want a machine that sits in their lap w/ a 50" monitor? Hell no. You wouldn't be able to see the whole screen without moving your head all around. The fact is that laptop screen size will soon get to it's max(it if hasn't already, 16.5 sounds awfully big).

    I think desktop screen size may get somewhat bigger, but probably 24" is as big as you'd want unless you were sitting a ways away from the screen.
  • Yes, while I'm sure I *could* have said that more, "delicately" I didn't really feel like it.

    All I wanted to do was make it *perfectly* clear that I *did not* like those fuckign huge ass laptop screens, and I felt strongly enough about it to use "more colorful" language.

    To be perfectly honest, I don't get what the deal is with huge ass laptop monitors, I mean really, it doesn't matter how thin, or light it is, if it's two square feet, it just isn't portable. Light and small is the only way to go. It's just always something that's bothered me.

    As far as weather or not my post was offensive, I suggest you might want to thicken your skin a little bit, a raving tirade about large laptop screens is hardly the worst of what's out there.
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • Yes 44 megabyte hard drives *were* good enough 10 years ago or whenever, but while hard drive's *data* sizes have been going up, there *physical* size has been going down. I have a 50 meg MFM hard drive sitting in my 386 (with 20 megs of ram :) it takes up 2 5'' drive bays!



    there are no *bad* effects of having a large hard drive (other than M$ bloatware, I suppose) whereas having a 21' screen on a portable well, makes it less portable.

    At some point, the resolution of a laptop is going to be limited by the human eye, and the only recourse will be to have larger monitors. That point may already have been reached There is only so far you can 'virtual' screen size....

    I'm sorry, but while a 17' monitor might be great, I don't want a 17' laptop.
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • I am not saying that the size will forever continue, but as far as most people are concearned bigger is always better...

    Kinda OT - but I remember working at a small mom/pop software shop that had a stand custom built and molded to look like a computer case - on top of this they mounted an IBM RS/6000 model 320 (at the time, it was classed as a workstation machine - as in desktop) - just to impress potential clients/investors (musta worked, to some extent - every year we made more sales and got larger)...
  • Actually, the article calls it XSGA+. But, I still hate it when they just don't tell you the numbers. After doing a little poking around, I found that XSGA is 1280x1024. Maybe XSGA+ is 1600x12[80]0? I can only dream. I'd love to replace my 19" CRT with one of these.

    mike
  • Damn hard - take a laptop apart sometime (NOT for the faint of heart!), and you will see that EVERYTHING is non-standard. And good luck getting any specs from the manufacturer of the display - no one will give them to you (I once tried to buy a display of a laptop I had with a cracked one - while I found a supplier, they wouldn't sell it to me because I only wanted a single one). It might be possible if you are a large company, but not for the DIYer...

  • FYI here's a link to the Samsung Electronics press release [samsungelectronics.com]

    My laptop is a couple of years old now and only has a 13.3" screen, so I'm looking forward to my next one (about 8 months off) when I can get one of these :-)

    It's gonna get real hard opening it up on the airplane though...

  • Cool (Score:1)

    by jecpwx ( 67112 )
    In a few years' time, laptop design will have revolutionised... thin screen.. li ion battery... blue tooth; we'll wonder what we were doing back in the 20th century.

    And it'll all run Linux :-)

    james
  • A little big for a laptop, isn't it? Still, I can't wait to see it. Even better, I can't wait to have one on my desk. It will be a nice upgrade from the 14" lcd that sits there now.

  • Think practically -- this is way too big. (Score:3)

    by InfiniterX ( 12749 ) on Tuesday July 27, 1999 @03:59PM (#1780226) Homepage
    I just got a Dell Inspiron 7000 with the 15" display, and I think it's great. The machine has a couple gotchas though, all of which (I think anyway) stem from the huge screen. I have no idea how a 16.5" screen would work but I'll speak from experience about the I7K:

    1. The notebook weighs 9 pounds. If you have to walk real far with this, it will kill your shoulder.

    2. The physical case is huge. Frankly I like that part, because it gives the notebook a nice solid feel (not like those Sony ones which feel as flimsy as a matchbook). It still fits comfortably on a lap, but I think if it were any bigger, it would be uncomfortable.

    3. The bigger the screen, the more chance you have to end up with dead pixels. I remember reading on Dell's customer service discussion board that the 15" displays on the I7K notebooks have 2.3 million transistors in them... statistically, the chances of any one of those failing is higher since there are more to 'possibly' fail. What this translates to is more possibility of having dead pixels on your screen. My notebook came with one dead pixel, and from what other people have told me it's a common thing on such big screens. Luckily if the problem gets worse, the warranty covers it.

    4. Just where would the screen go? The I7K screen is actually as big as the base of the laptop, so when the lid is shut, the lid actually hangs over the edge. I'd hate to see how they can wrangle a 16.5" screen into it.

    5. Think of the power consumption... the I7K has a huge battery which (according to the Linux APM meter) still holds 3 hours worth of power, as long as you're not playing Half-Life. Another inch and a half's worth of backlight could eat into your power requirements and require a bigger battery... adding more weight.

    I'm sure someone will make a laptop with a 16.5" screen. It might be great for graphic artists to show things to clients, or in other situations where portability doesn't matter. But I wouldn't expect this thing to go far in the normal portable PC market, it's just *too* big.

  • God dam, what is up with these huge ass Laptops?? I mean 16.5 inches? that's like a god dam 19 inch monitor on the plain with you! I don't see why anyone would want somthing like that, I mean, it's supposed to be *portable*........
    "Subtle mind control? Why do all these HTML buttons say 'Submit' ?"
  • *Grin* Your post reminded me of the report of man landing on the moon in "Our Dumb Century" by The Onion Folks. Seriously though, the trend is moving back to luggables / portables for home and small office space usage. I would not classify these new machines as laptops. I personally prefer to use a large notebook at home because I can move it around easily between the living room, bedroom, study etc when I am working at home. Additionally, space is at a premium in most parts of Asia (especially places like Hong Kong, Japan etc) and having a notebook with a large screen which takes up less real estate makes life a lot easier.

  • Is an arms length far enough???? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    On my 17" monitor I like to keep my face about 3 feet from the monitor, and the keyboard about 18" away.

    On my 21" monitor I stay at least 4/5 feet from the monitor and the keyboard is 2/3 feet from the monitor.

    OK, what about a 16" laptop? How confortable will it be to work with the keyboard only a couple of inches from the screen and my face no further than I can confortably stretch my arms?

    Perhaps the fact that these are LCD's mean it will be more comfortable to have my face plastered up against the screen?

    Any pointers to CHI (computer/human interaction) studies that try to determine, what the maximum size for a useable laptop screen is? Or putting it another way: how big can a computer screen be, while having the keyboard a couple of inches from the screen?


  • They've already got 'em! I saw a Samsung monitor at CompUSA this afternoon that looked like the equivalent of a 17" CRT. 1280x1024 resolution, too ... and it exhibited none of the color distortion my PowerBook G3 screen shows when I shift viewing angles. Thweet!
  • That thing is going to take a lot of power

    Ya know -- it's hard enough ordering a custom laptop from dell online since you really have no clue about the power consupmtion... what ticks me off is that they give you no clue as to how much power you're going to be sucking down --

    I mean, the difference between a 300 celeron and a 400 PII is BIG.

    Oh well -- Gyserville will solve all our problems (sha right) -- anyway...
  • 44mb HD's were big enough 7 years ago... Everything changes... Does the current cost outweigh the good parts of this, probably, but then again, someone out there will always have reason to use it.

    My 12.1" LCD panel that I am using now is fine, and in fact I am going to go w/a 14" viewable 15" monitor b/c I just don't need anything bigger than that, but who is to say that Joe over there doesn't want it?

    Another worthless .02
  • ...my desktop with a 16.5" LCD! My desktop now has a 15" CRT (14 viewable ;) so the new "laptop" display represents a huge upgrade in screen area for my desktop... I'm so cheap, however, that it'll be two or three years before I ditch this 15" tube!
  • does everyone keep coming out with these enormous screens on laptops. Laptops are meant to be portable, not desktop replacements. These bigger screens only reduce battery life even more than the Pentium II chips running them. Come on, two hours battery life? Thats horrible, a Powerbook G3 will get you about 6 hours, an AMD powered notebook will probably get you about 3-4 hours. Laptop makers are missing the point, you buy a PORTABLE computing because it's supposed to be something you can use to take your work on the road with you, without needing an AC outlet. Instead of making screens that make laptops impossible to fit into a backpack, how about working on getting a longer battery life out of laptops, making them a little cheaper wouldnt hurt either. The iBook is a great example of a Good Thing in laptops. It's relatively inexpensive, it's got a long battery life and powerful processor, not to mention it's built-in v.90 modem and 10/100 ethernet. What's Apple's secret? A 12.1 inch screen that doesn't use much power and a processor with better conductors. The 12 inch screen isn't a problem because it comes with 4MB of video RAM for a high resolution even on the small screen. Given the choice between a PC notebook and an iBook, the iBook would definitely get my money, which it probably will when it's released.
  • No joke about the laptop being too big! Screen real estate is nice, but I feel its real measure is the resolution. Laptop screens are very sharp and a small screen with 1600x... resolution would be wonderful. Imagine all the xterms and browser windows you could fit on such as screen. If my 12.1" laptop had better than 1200x... I would be happy with it for life. What I'm trying to say is that I don't need a honkin' big screen as I can allready see the corners of each pixel, I just want more pixels in my screen real estate!
  • 2. The physical case is huge. Frankly I like that part, because it gives the notebook a nice solid feel (not like those Sony ones which feel as flimsy as a matchbook). It still fits comfortably on a lap, but I think if it were any bigger, it would be uncomfortable.

    I've been usung one of the 14" Sonys for
    a few months now, and it stands up pretty
    well to a bit of punishment. I don't know about
    the wafer-thin ones, mind you. I went for one
    with a built-in CD and floppy, as you only end up
    carrying them around with you anyway.

    But I can see what you mean about the 16" screen.
    For start, it's going to be unwieldy on a plane
    unless you're in fat capitalist git class.

    Oh, and to CmdrTaco and anyone else thinking of
    getting one - make sure that you either get
    a version with an ESS chipset or the Soundblaster
    extensions to the (Neomagic) audio chipset, as
    sound's a bitch to get working under Linux with
    the vanilla Neomagic 256av chipset.

    K.
    -

    How come there's an "open source" entry in the
  • I think there are other technologies coming that will allow for flexible screens so the laptop will be no bigger than the keyboard (imagine a standard desktop keyboard) with a pull out screen that comes out of the top almost like a piece of paper going into one of those paper port keyboards. A couple of side stiffeners and it would be stable. The electric ink technology is showing it can be done on 3mm vinyl for posters. The speed and color will come with time. The biggest thing with flat panels today is the protection from damage. If it rolls up in the keyboard like a window blind (maybe I should trademark that as a name? 8^), it's pretty safe. We know that the other components will fit in the housing. We're doing it in the Palm and WinCE world already. I'd much prefer a standard keyboard. I'd also prefer a portrait display which addresses the big screen, small footprint better since you're rolling up the large axis into the smaller width. With a standard laptop there's no advantage to screen orientation.
  • One thing that most people seem to be ignoring is that this is also the basis for your 17" flat desktop display.
  • Yes, but the size of the LCD's are going down. I recently saw a 15" LCD that was REAL thin. My 12.1" LCD is nearly twice as thick. So the size *is* going down and going up heeh.

    I am not saying that the size will forever continue, but as far as most people are concearned bigger is always better...

    To each his own I guess.
  • A 16.5 inch panel pretty much defeats the point of calling it a "notebook". Doing some simple math based on a diagonal size of 16.5" and an aspect ratio of 3:4, we discover that the width of the screen *alone* is 13.2" and 9.9" high. A "notebook" is only supposed to be a hair over 8.5" X 11" right? This portable will be at the very least 10.5" X 13.5", even if they manage to slim the whole notebook down to .7-.8" high thats still a large notebook, not to mention the heft they are going to add too it trying to fit a battery large enough to power a screen that size for a long time. Man, I bet some notebook/briefcases won't even fit something that big! Thanks, but no thanks, I'll keep screens that big on my desk, get me higher res for my lap.

    Spyky
  • Sony has the KL-W9000 monitor [sony.com] which looks awesome. I posted it here but I guess it wasn't as cool as all that Amiga vaporware. I have a question regarding LCDs I hope someone can answer it. I posted it through "Ask Slashdot" but i guess it wasn't that important either. Do images in LCDs get burned in, like in CRTs? I ask because I heard that if you have a 16:9 TV and only see 4:3 programs eventually you will notice the side bars in widescreen movies. Is any of this true?
  • I've got a Hyperdata notebook here with a 14.1" display. Very nice. It's a P2-300 and has 64 megs of memory and a 6 gig hard drive. It runs linux just fine and gives me about 3 to 3.5hrs battery life when being *used*. No I don't crack RC5 on it when I'm on battery, but I do use it for development and network admin.

    Would I want a bigger screen? No. This one is quite comfortable for me. 1024x768 is *very* clear, with no color shift when tilitng from 0 degrees. 800x600 is just too small, but if I could get a higher res in the same size I'd be happier. :-)
  • Hurrah!!! Thats what i ment to say(i was the poster of the message you replied to), however i haven't evolved to use words too well. I hope a lot of people read your message (especially the people at dell)
  • I work with IBM hardware, and we get a lot of ThinkPads. If you've ever entriley taken apart a ThinkPad, you'll know that the actual LCD panel is about 0.4 cm thick, regardless of height or width. Then why is the entire LCD unit (case included) so thick? Well, the LCD sits on top of some beams in the case. Underneath the LCD panel run a few ribbon cables from the bottom of the case to the right hand side, where they plug into the LCD panel. Aside from that, there's nothing under the LCD. It's all empty space. THis is just to keep the LCD panel safe, because it is extremly delecate. So it's not making the LCD thinner that we have to worry about. It's about making it stronger. Once it's stronge enough, it won't even need casing.
  • If they do, I doubt they will take it to heart - after all, there is profit involved...
  • Nine pounds for a laptop can't be all that bad. I used to have a 386 laptop that weighed *15 pounds* and that was light back in the beginning of this decade. It sported a 12V nicad battery pack, 40MB hard drive, and 1 MB of memory. They crammed all that in a laptop case and it was very portable... at the time. Yeah, it was a pain on the shoulders walking to classes with it!
  • As far as I'm concerned, laptops will _really_ start to outnumber desktops when they come with decent 3d accelerators. Yes, I mean something better than an ATI Rage Pro.

    If I could get one of those Dell Inspirons or an IBM Thinkpad 770 with the rough equivalent of a RIVA TNT2 in it, I'd be there in 1/4 uSec.

  • Given the 720x600mm substrate, they conceivably could manufacture 16:9 ratio screens with a 16.25" diagonal (8"x14.2") at about the same cost as the slightly larger 4:3 ratio screens. (Four panels per substrate.)
  • >I'm sure someone will make a laptop with a
    >16.5" screen. It might be great for graphic
    >artists to show things to clients, or in
    >other situations where portability doesn't matter.

    I've always wanted a computer for precisely that! Specifically, I'd like a very flat computer that could be built into an 11"x17" portfolio case. Theoretically, you could put a display approaching 20" into such a form factor -- the same viewable area as a 21" CRT.

    If you could also add a pressure-sensitive stylus that would work directly on the screen, you'd have a neat machine for digital artists, some of whom would like to truck out of the studio and work on-site just like those beret-wearing guys with the charcoal pads and easels and watercolours.

    This would be a great specialty item for architects and designers and so on. As long as we need to carry a big ol' case containing our comps or blueprints, it might as well have a neat computer in it too.

  • This is a critical insight. There are physical limits to the eye-hand-focal plane matrix. The aspect ratio of the LCD is probably more important than the diagonal size, as 16:9 corresponds quite naturally to human field of vision, and the ability to orient icons and other items on the metaphorical desktop to the sides while keeping the center of attention open for the top-most task would be a boon to productivity. If there is to be a convergence of information technologies toward a single device like a PowerBook, and I am not entirely certain that this is a good idea, then the push SHOULD emphasize the 16:9 ratio, and the results of a definitive study of the Human Interface component should define the limits. Consider the new cinema technology that was unveiled during the debut of Star Bores, er Wars, Episode One. Pixel sized mirrors projected a cleaner, crisper image with greater detail, resolution, luminance, contrast, and color control. There have been experiments that have shown great promise using nearly microscopic buckminsterfullerenes which have been coated with magnetic rgb (red/green/blue) pigments on one hemisphere, and white on the other, and they render images at 24 frames per second. My thoughts are that TFT screens are a technology with still some legs, but are not much of long-term solution because of power requirements, susceptibility to damage, and poor yields from the factories.
  • When it happens, that is. A portable, PIII Linux station with about 256Mb RAM and a 16" screen is NICE. I wonder if these will do something around 1280x1024 ever.
  • Projection screen TVs do that.
    LCD's dont.
    Regular CRTs (TV or monitor) don't - anymore.

    *old* ones used to. I have a 1980s-ish 20" Hitachi that has a map of the US burned into it. Still extremely usable, only noticable when using a white background. Got it for the price of the RGBHVVGA cable used to hook it up to a PC ($50).
  • While it sounds big for a laptop, it sounds great for a desktop LCD display, particularly if they make enough so the price is reasonable.

    ----
  • Argh.. make that a VGA to RGB+H+V cable.. Red, Green, Blue, horiz, vert sync.. big coaxial connectors like in HP workstations..
  • Excellent point, Graymalkin. And with the AirPort wireless technology, too! However, there is something to be said for a notebook TYPE of computer to replace the desktop, which can maintain a connexion to the power mains, perhaps with a battery. Who wouldn't like to get some desktop space back? Especially if they could have, as in the iBook, the power of the most powerful desktop wintel peecee in Apple Computer's least powerful machine?
  • Basically anything weight more than 2 pounds is NOT a laptop in my book. LCD Goggles is the future.




    cy
  • Yeah, no kidding. It makes me wonder: how hard would it be to build a circuit that converted from SVGA 15-pin input to LCD? Fit the circuitry into a base to hold the screen up. Buy a laptop, take the screen off of it, attach connector/base.
    Voila, budget desktop LCD, with a whole self-contained computer left over. (car mp3/gps/whatever? :))

  • Because you need a bigger screen to get higher resolutions. The iBook screen would be fantastic if it could reach a reasonable resolution, but it can't. It can only do 800x600, which is simply unacceptable for regular use by nearly all geeks and most normal users. The 4M of RAM is just for displaying to an external monitor.

  • I was talking about the superslim notebooks.... a person in my office has one, and I helped him put Linux on it. I could hardly type at the thing, since it was so small -- there isn't much room for key travel when the computer itself is almost as thick as the keyboard on my Dell. He got the low-end model (although they only offer 2 models) so maybe the high-end one is better; I don't know.

    The only upside about the Sony (that I can see) is that it's ULTRA-portable. If you weren't feature/power hungry, and just wanted something for coding or writing papers on the go, then it's great. As for me, though, I'm power and feature-hungry, and the Superslim didn't have enough bells-and-whistles for me to justify paying its higher price.
  • if i chunk out 3 grand for a portable computer i want it to be exactly that, portable. If we could spend more time working on wearable computers with tiny little lcds that could support super high resoultions i'd be happy.
    That's why i don't want a laptop, i already have my own computer which sits on my desktop running 24X7 churning apart RC5-64. What I want in a computer is exactly what Palm is offering to me now. I want a palm IIIx.
    I don't need a 16 inch screen on a laptop, if i want a 16 inch screen i'll buy a crt.
  • the screen for a movie is 16:9. it's the ratio between the width and the height.
    ---
  • I dunno, sounds pretty big to me, that's why I like my libretto, (although crunching my fingers on the keyboard took awhile to get used to) its really a computer you can take around with you. This 16" screen sounds like about 4 of my screens.
    It would be nice, but not if you like carrying a linux box in a CD player case.
  • I've never understood that. What does censoring one's language have to do with respecting the people around you? It only has to do with respecting that which one is swearing at. Agh, too many 'one's. Ah well. You get the idea, I hope.
    ---
  • then what about just getting a flat panel tv screen of that (or larger) size?

Slashdot Top Deals

Disclaimer: "These opinions are my own, though for a small fee they be yours too." -- Dave Haynie

Close