State of laptops
-
@Helix said:
@blakeyrat said:
Let's take something that's already pretty complicated, computer monitor resolution. Now let's make it even more impenetrable by instead of just telling people what the resolution is, making up crazy acronyms standing for something no actual human being has actually said instead. Even worse, some computer sites only use those retarded acronyms and never just tell you the actual fucking resolution.
Yeah, becasue instead of looking for a Core 2 Duo or Core i3 I have been searching for a laptop listing which just says what it has. Ideally I am looking for 624M transistors, L2 2x256k, L3 3MB clocked at 2.1Gs.
But are you looking for a Core i3-330M, or a modern Intel microprocessor with two cores and a clock frequency of at least 2 GHz?
Without looking at Wikipedia or a similar reference, can you tell what the differences between Core 2 Duo T5800, T5850, T5870, T6500 and T6570 are?
-
@tdb said:
@Helix said:
@blakeyrat said:
Let's take something that's already pretty complicated, computer monitor resolution. Now let's make it even more impenetrable by instead of just telling people what the resolution is, making up crazy acronyms standing for something no actual human being has actually said instead. Even worse, some computer sites only use those retarded acronyms and never just tell you the actual fucking resolution.
Yeah, becasue instead of looking for a Core 2 Duo or Core i3 I have been searching for a laptop listing which just says what it has. Ideally I am looking for 624M transistors, L2 2x256k, L3 3MB clocked at 2.1Gs.
But are you looking for a Core i3-330M, or a modern Intel microprocessor with two cores and a clock frequency of at least 2 GHz?
Without looking at Wikipedia or a similar reference, can you tell what the differences between Core 2 Duo T5800, T5850, T5870, T6500 and T6570 are?
No
-
@AndyCanfield said:
Think not? You're on the screen right now. Drop your resolution to 800x600. In theory everything should be the same size, but get fuzzier, because the resolution is lower. But it does not behave that way - everything gets bigger. All the window sizes are in pixels, not centimeters or degrees of vision.
We're already on the same page here, no need to restate it.
@AndyCanfield said:
It would be good if we could specify a font height of, say, 35 retina pixels.
No. That would be bad. You don't need to introduce a new unit that's completely unfamiliar to most [graphics]developers. As I already said: once we get to 300dpi+ pixel densities, we'll start measuring things in analog units, rather than pixels. This is no different to what we do in print, where high dot densities have almost always been the norm. Fonts will be in points. Lines will be 0.5mm thick. Blocks will be 4×4cm etc.
@AndyCanfield said:
When I look at a cartoon on the Internet I have to drop my screen resolution way down in order to read the captions.
You drop the resolution? That's a little cumbersome. Why not just zoom in? It's what I often do. You'll have the benefits of larger comics AND the benefit of high-resolution resampling.
@AndyCanfield said:
And points does not work either. Cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be half as big.
? Only if the implementation fucks up the relation between screen pixels an on-screen data. But again, this only becomes a relevant issue once we reach high-density displays.
-
@dhromed said:
@AndyCanfield said:
It would be good if we could specify a font height of, say, 35 retina pixels.
No. That would be bad. You don't need to introduce a new unit that's completely unfamiliar to most [graphics]developers. As I already said: once we get to 300dpi+ pixel densities, we'll start measuring things in analog units, rather than pixels. This is no different to what we do in print, where high dot densities have almost always been the norm. Fonts will be in points. Lines will be 0.5mm thick. Blocks will be 4×4cm etc.@AndyCanfield said:And points does not work either. Cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be half as big.
? Only if the implementation fucks up the relation between screen pixels an on-screen data. But again, this only becomes a relevant issue once we reach high-density displays.
My oops - cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be TWICE as big. Not half. Even if it was originally specified in ems or centimeters or inches, it will jump to twice the size.
"Retina pixels" means the number of cones in your eye. As such it is dependent not only on how big the object is, but how far away from you it is. Your eyes see in a resolution of one retina pixel. A box may be 40 retinal pixels wide. That will be perhaps 2 centimeters if the screen is at mobile phone distance, 4 centimeters at laptop distance, 5 centimeters at desktop distance, and 1 meter at billboard distance.
"once we get to 300dpi+ pixel densities ..."
The chicken or the egg? Why should anyone build a screen with 300 dbi pixel density if everything is too small to see, and why should the interface designers (that's you and me) support visual angle size specification if all sizes boil down to pixels?
Oh, I see. You hope to specify a box width of 5 centimeters, and it automatically converts to 1 meter on billboards. That's feasible.
And a HELL of a lot today can not be specified in "analog" disance measurements. Javascript DOM innerWidth is in PIXELS, and the resize methods take PIXELS.
Sun said "The network is the computer". Well, today, the Internet is the network, and so the Internet is the computer. "Everything except HTML and JavaScript" means "Everything".
-
@AndyCanfield said:
"Retina pixels" means the number of cones in your eye. As such it is dependent not only on how big the object is, but how far away from you it is. Your eyes see in a resolution of one retina pixel. A box may be 40 retinal pixels wide. That will be perhaps 2 centimeters if the screen is at mobile phone distance, 4 centimeters at laptop distance, 5 centimeters at desktop distance, and 1 meter at billboard distance.
-
@Shishire said:
A low end gamer laptop will almost certainly have better components in it. It should also, if your lucky, run cooler due to a better airflow design.Really depends upon where you go to buy them. Some place like Newegg.com will get you a really nice laptop with full specs. 1920x1080 for a laptop screen is not uncommon nowadays. A good laptop, with a good size screen and a decent amount of power will cost you around $600-$800. More expensive as you add more power and features. If you're lucky enough to have a computer super-store in your area (I live near a Microcenter), definitely make sure to check them out, they'll let you play with stuff and see if you like it first. Never try to buy a "consumer" laptop. Go for a low end gamer laptop, they're better quality and sometimes they're not chock full of crap-ware.
-
@AndyCanfield said:
@dhromed said:
@AndyCanfield said:
It would be good if we could specify a font height of, say, 35 retina pixels.
No. That would be bad. You don't need to introduce a new unit that's completely unfamiliar to most [graphics]developers. As I already said: once we get to 300dpi+ pixel densities, we'll start measuring things in analog units, rather than pixels. This is no different to what we do in print, where high dot densities have almost always been the norm. Fonts will be in points. Lines will be 0.5mm thick. Blocks will be 4×4cm etc.@AndyCanfield said:And points does not work either. Cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be half as big.
? Only if the implementation fucks up the relation between screen pixels an on-screen data. But again, this only becomes a relevant issue once we reach high-density displays.
My oops - cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be TWICE as big. Not half. Even if it was originally specified in ems or centimeters or inches, it will jump to twice the size.
"Retina pixels" means the number of cones in your eye. As such it is dependent not only on how big the object is, but how far away from you it is. Your eyes see in a resolution of one retina pixel. A box may be 40 retinal pixels wide. That will be perhaps 2 centimeters if the screen is at mobile phone distance, 4 centimeters at laptop distance, 5 centimeters at desktop distance, and 1 meter at billboard distance.
And what of users with different levels of visual acuity? I like to make maximum use of my screen real estate, especially on mobile devices with small screens, by scaling down font sizes as far as I can comfortably read. That means font sizes of about 1mm on my mobile phone and 2mm on desktops. I've often got comments from others that my text is unreadable, but I can read it just fine. There should be some kind of system setting to set the default font size and scale everything else according to that; the defaults can be something sensible for devices of different form factors.
As for billboards, they're a very different medium. You have a graphics designer create content that will be displayed using the entire billboard. There isn't even really such a thing as "billboard viewing distance" - an indoors billboard might be viewed from just 5 or 10 metres away, while a huge outdoors one might need to be visible from the other side of the town square 200 metres away. You have the content and you select the billboard size so that the physical size of text will be suitable large; or you have a billboard of a specific size in a specific environment and have the content designed for it. Having the content overflow the billboard or not use the entire area due to some automatic scaling is not acceptable.
@AndyCanfield said:"once we get to 300dpi+ pixel densities ..."
The chicken or the egg? Why should anyone build a screen with 300 dbi pixel density if everything is too small to see, and why should the interface designers (that's you and me) support visual angle size specification if all sizes boil down to pixels?
UI designers should not need to care about any sizes. A good UI toolkit is capable of resizing and arranging widgets automatically as determined by the default font size of the system and the layout specified by the designer. And by "layout" I mean widget relations, like "widget A is left of widget B". There are several different approaches, of which I'm most familiar with GTK's boxes. They work really well for resizable UIs. Manually specifying widget positions and sizes in whatever units is so 90s. @AndyCanfield said:
And a HELL of a lot today can not be specified in "analog" disance measurements. Javascript DOM innerWidth is in PIXELS, and the resize methods take PIXELS.
HTML, CSS and Javascript are crap. As much as I hate Flash for its closedness, it's actually a much better publishing platform. Creating presentations or applications that scale according to browser window size comes naturally to it.
-
TL, DR:
We will have these super-HD screens, and it'll be just fine. Things will scale, and dpi will be insane.———————
@AndyCanfield said:
The chicken or the egg? Why should anyone build a screen with 300 dpi pixel density if everything is too small to see, and why should the interface designers (that's you and me) support visual angle size specification if all sizes boil down to pixels?
We're already moving to high-density displays. The Retina display is on the ipod. Laptop screen offer increasingly large resolutions in tiny packages. OSX and windows 7 have fully scaleable widgets that respond properly to DPI changes of the setting in the OS. I foresee a future where this is done automtically by communication between the OS and the monitor, such that the current "DPI" setting in Windows will be renamed to a "scale" setting.
It won't be long before 21" full HD resolutions will be compacted into a 17" desktop monitor, and after that, you'll see manufacturers just jump to the production of very high pixel densites — probably double, since it's a nice integer multiple. At first, you will see such monitors reporting their resolution as half of what they actually are, bt then the OS will catch up, so that it renders its widgets at ultra-crisp 200% dpi, while keeping applications at 2×2 pixels, unless the app requests to use the HD resolutions. Photoshop is a good candidate for such an app.
AA in games will fall into disuse, as the monitors offer plenty of resolution to not show jaggies. 3200×2400 non-AA on a 300dpi will be the norm and IT WILL BE A GLORIOIUS NEW WORLD HUZZAH HUZZAH HUZZAH
@AndyCanfield said:
Oh, I see. You hope to specify a box width of 5 centimeters, and it automatically converts to 1 meter on billboards. That's feasible.
Yup, because I'm assuming that the massive billboard, while containing the same total quantity of pixels, will have a much, much lower dpi, and as such, the OS that drives that billoboard will ensure proper proportions.
@AndyCanfield said:
And a HELL of a lot today can not be specified in "analog" disance measurements. Javascript DOM innerWidth is in PIXELS,and the resize methods take PIXELS.
I agree, and this is a real problem! I suppose it may be fixed or patched by having the OS treat "1px" as "1pt". Currently, the "pixel" has no standard size, so any sufficiently tiny measurement, like 0.5mm or 1pt would be a good candidate for pixel/analog compatibility, with minimal divergence from the current state of things.
@AndyCanfield said:
My oops - cut the screen resolution in half, and a 30 point font will be TWICE as big. Not half. Even if it was originally specified in ems or centimeters or inches, it will jump to twice the size.
Again, only if the OS fucks it up. You cut the screen resolution, and your font will remain the same -- just a little coarser. This is not how things are now, but it is how things should be.
-
VERY happy with mny ASUS, 17" display full HD resolution, standard with 1TB of 7200 rpm disk, 8GB of Ram, i7 processor, BluRay. I tweaked mine arround (factory upgrades), 256GB of SSDD, 1 TB of Hybrid (2x 500GB w/4GB) (pulled the BluRay since I rarely use physical medial), upgraded the processor (still an i7 but now extreme), 16GB FAST Ram.
Really a sweet box. I tend to do all my work (mainly Windows) in Virtual Machines (Hyper-V) and I have no provlem running 6 machines at the same time on the box.
-
-
@Helix said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
ASUS, 17" display full HD resolution
arrrrgggghhhh
Remember that some people actually have good eyesight. The kind that can read on the monitor what song's playing, from across the room.
I'm very jealous of these people. Full HD 17" would be like death for me.
-
@dhromed said:
Remember that some people actually have good eyesight. The kind that can read on the monitor what song's playing, from across the room.
I'm very jealous of these people. Full HD 17" would be like death for me.
I had good eyesight, but time does takes it's toll....Still I dont have a problem. A 17" laptop screen at "normal" viewing distance (about 2 feet) is radially equivilant to my 50" TV at a viewing distance of about 9 feet. (i.e. take up same percentage of field of vision)...
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
I *had* good eyesight, but time does takes it's toll....Still I dont have a problem.
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
-
@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Not sure what scale that is using...Even if it is LogMAR, then the normal charts only go down to -0.30 [the equivilant of 20/10 [or 6/3 for metric environments]
-
I can reccomend the HP Elitebook 8530p (Dont know if its still available new as mine is 18 months old now)
Screen is best that I have seen on a laptop (1680 * 1050) Keyboard is so good that I use it even when docked with a normal desktop keyboard available and the case is brushed aluminium and pretty tough (mine has a few dents now due to a few "mishaps" where things have been dropped on it.
The laptop itself was £1200 new which is the high end of the scale, but it really is a f*king great laptop!
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Not sure what scale that is using...Even if it is LogMAR, then the normal charts only go down to -0.30 [the equivilant of 20/10 [or 6/3 for metric environments]
I assume he's talking about the sphere element of his prescription. Which would mean he's got super myoipia. A cool simulator I just found googling around. Note that it only goes to -5. I have no idea how accurate it is, but at -5 you can't really make anything out. Either way, with -10, I can only assume that dhromed has some real coke bottles there.
-
One of my clients assigned me an 8530p, and I hate it. While the screen is good, it is smaller than my 17" (and at the same HD resolution) so it would have even worse "usability" for someone with limited vision at the upper resolutions. Other than that, it is horribly under powered, will not support large HD sizes (or multiple HD's). Given the changes that have occured in even the past three months, there is no way I would recommend it.
-
@boomzilla said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
is there a glass prescription for jpeg compression artefacts?
I assume he's talking about the sphere element of his prescription. Which would mean he's got super myoipia. A cool simulator I just found googling around. Note that it only goes to -5. I have no idea how accurate it is, but at -5 you can't really make anything out. Either way, with -10, I can only assume that dhromed has some real coke bottles there.@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Not sure what scale that is using...Even if it is LogMAR, then the normal charts only go down to -0.30 [the equivilant of 20/10 [or 6/3 for metric environments]
-
@wonkoTheSane said:
I can reccomend the HP Elitebook 8530p (Dont know if its still available new as mine is 18 months old now)
Screen is best that I have seen on a laptop (1680 * 1050) Keyboard is so good that I use it even when docked with a normal desktop keyboard available and the case is brushed aluminium and pretty tough (mine has a few dents now due to a few "mishaps" where things have been dropped on it.
The laptop itself was £1200 new which is the high end of the scale, but it really is a f*king great laptop!Thanks but i am now myopic on getting a 15inch wuxga (1920x1200 for flakeyrat)
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Not sure what scale that is using...Even if it is LogMAR, then the normal charts only go down to -0.30 [the equivilant of 20/10 [or 6/3 for metric environments]
-
@boomzilla said:
I assume he's talking about the sphere element of his prescription. Which would mean he's got super myoipia. A cool simulator I just found googling around. Note that it only goes to -5. I have no idea how accurate it is, but at -5 you can't really make anything out.
Paint.Net has a Fragment blur filter that, combined with a tiny bit of gaussian blur, can simulate eye blur with adequate accuracy. Here's my desktop without glasses.
It requires the Fragment blur filter because the aperture is not perfect. Your iris has a rough edge, there's dust on your eye, your lashes disperse light etc etc etc.
@boomzilla said:
Either way, with -10, I can only assume that dhromed has some real coke bottles there.
Erm, lens production technology sort of has developed since 1900, you know. The thinnest bits of my lenses are about 2mm, the thickest 5.5. The face bits behind my glasses look about 10% smaller than they really are.
€750 for the whole package. Insurance return: €0.
Technically, my glasses should correct to 100% visus, but obviously circumstances and my frames' position are never perfect, so I'm basically hovering around -1. I need to have 'em adjusted, really. They do that for free (excellent service!) but I'm too lazy.
-
-
@dhromed said:
@boomzilla said:
Either way, with -10, I can only assume that dhromed has some real coke bottles there.
Erm, lens production technology sort of has developed since 1900, you know. The thinnest bits of my lenses are about 2mm, the thickest 5.5.
Yes, of course, though for modern glasses, 5.5mm fits my idea of coke bottles. Certainly better than it used to be.
@dhromed said:
Wow, that seems expensive. My "list" price, before insurance / discounts was $562, including the exam. Looks like the lenses were about $120 of that. Insurance paid or discounted $374 of that. I think I pay about $200 per year to cover my family (wife and daughter both wear glasses / contacts). Yeah, I never go get my frames adjusted either, which I should, especially after they get stepped or sat on.€750 for the whole package. Insurance return: €0.
Technically, my glasses should correct to 100% visus, but obviously circumstances and my frames' position are never perfect, so I'm basically hovering around -1. I need to have 'em adjusted, really. They do that for free (excellent service!) but I'm too lazy.
-
@dhromed said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Not sure what scale that is using...Even if it is LogMAR, then the normal charts only go down to -0.30 [the equivilant of 20/10 [or 6/3 for metric environments]
I had never realized there was an actual unit equal to 1/meters. I'm going to start measuring the speed of things in hertz per diopter.
-
@boomzilla said:
Wow, that seems expensive. My "list" price, before insurance / discounts was $562, including the exam. Looks like the lenses were about $120 of that. Insurance paid or discounted $374 of that. I think I pay about $200 per year to cover my family (wife and daughter both wear glasses / contacts). Yeah, I never go get my frames adjusted either, which I should, especially after they get stepped or sat on.
Wow, that seems expensive. I normally wear contacts, and also tend to sit on my glasses or some such fairly often, so I usually get the cheapest pair of frames in the shop that look ok - I think the last pair were £20 or something, including lenses.
-
@Someone You Know said:
I'm going to start measuring the speed of things in hertz per diopter
Someone else got there first. (1 Hz/D = 6012.88475 fur/fortnight)
-
@intertravel said:
I usually get the cheapest pair of frames in the shop that look ok - I think the last pair were £20 or something, including lenses.
Price seems to go up exponentially with lens strength. Some shops even throw in a second pair for free.
-
@dhromed said:
@intertravel said:
I usually get the cheapest pair of frames in the shop that look ok - I think the last pair were £20 or something, including lenses.
Price seems to go up exponentially with lens strength and complexity. Some shops even throw in a second pair for free.
FTFY
-
I was sucked in by the Acer 8943G - about 9 months ago - I got i7-720QM with 8G RAM, 18.1" 1920x1080 screen, BLU-Ray writer, ATI 5850 graphics with 1G DDR-2RAM, 1G hard drive, Wireless N, 5.1 sound. By the time I left the shop I had paid over £2k including damage insurance for 3 years.
Decided didnt want Alienware because the keyboard reminded me of the Commodore PET ....
You have to watch out with Acer - there are a lot of models all with the same number but varying RAM, Wireless, DVD/BluRay/Processor/Graphics and price tags varying over 2 to 1 ratio.
BAD - twin 500G 5400 RPM HDD slow slow drives, Shiny screen, shiny everything, Apple inspired keyboard for slow typing. Noisy fan. Wont fit (1 inch too long) in any normal laptop bag. Weighs 9 lbs. 5.1 surround sound sounds like its playing down a length of steel drainage tube unless switched off. Broadcom Wireless-N LAN adaptor locks up and takes out machine even after BIOS and driver upgrades . (but learnt not to use Photoshop media importer which triggered lockup unless on wired LAN) Graphics card runs with DDR2 instead of DDR3 Ram so slower than could be. Battery life about 90 minutes to 150 minutes.
Good - Solid build - hinges wont tear out of case like previous acer 5103 PC. Cant flick keytops off keyboard with edges of fingers. Stiff enough to not have chips pop off PCB like previous acer. Plays games at reasonable FPS. Microphone/ Speech recognition can pick out people speaking in a room with background noise. BLU-Ray writer writes sucessfully on most media including Blu-ray. Dual touch glidepad works. Machine looks cool and impresses people.
This machine replaced one I bought a few years back - went to local Tesco supermarket to buy cooking oil for Christmas and bought a laptop as well. That Acer had to have 2 new motherboards before I stopped carrying it in a backpack which bent it and cracked the hinges out of the case as well as the chips off the PCB.
But then I wasnt looking for a business machine but I was familiar with the quality of Dells which I did also consider (but couldnt get the processor/video combinations unless I went very high end or Alienware)
-
@PJH said:
@Someone You Know said:
I'm going to start measuring the speed of things in hertz per diopter
Someone else got there first. (1 Hz/D = 6012.88475 fur/fortnight)Every idea that initially seems original is already on Wikipedia.
-
@Someone You Know said:
@PJH said:
@Someone You Know said:
I'm going to start measuring the speed of things in hertz per diopter
Someone else got there first. (1 Hz/D = 6012.88475 fur/fortnight)Every idea that initially seems original is already on Wikipedia.
Did not check Wikipedia, but bonus points for the person who can identify what computer system kept the internal time in micro-fortnights....(I happen to own a few of them)
-
@TheCPUWizard said:
Did not check Wikipedia, but bonus points for the person who can identify what computer system kept the internal time in micro-fortnights....(I happen to own a few of them)
I dunno, but I was always a little disappointed when MacOS switched from ticks (1/60th of a second) to milliseconds. I mean you can get milliseconds anywhere, ticks were pretty unique.
-
@blakeyrat said:
@TheCPUWizard said:
Did not check Wikipedia, but bonus points for the person who can identify what computer system kept the internal time in micro-fortnights....(I happen to own a few of them)
I dunno, but I was always a little disappointed when MacOS switched from ticks (1/60th of a second) to milliseconds. I mean you can get milliseconds anywhere, ticks were pretty unique.
Yeah, but milliseconds don't spread lyme disease.
-
@boomzilla said:
I assume he's talking about the sphere element of his prescription. Which would mean he's got super myoipia. A cool simulator I just found googling around. Note that it only goes to -5. I have no idea how accurate it is, but at -5 you can't really make anything out. Either way, with -10, I can only assume that dhromed has some real coke bottles there.
It's pretty crap IMAO. My myopia is off the scale for that simulator (around -7, but I have astigmatism too so my full prescription is more complicated than that), but if I push it to the limits the simulated chart is cream and light grey; if I take off my glasses, the sharp chart becomes completely unreadable (I can't even read the E in the top row without squinting) but is still clearly black and white.
-
"The author of this page has no eye-related professional education."
-
@AndyCanfield said:
Actually, that's Apple-created marketing bullspeak with no neurobiological grounding in reality."Retina pixels" means the number of cones in your eye. [ ... snip correct bit about angle subtended ... ] Your eyes see in a resolution of one retina pixel.
-
@dhromed said:
For comparison, I have -10 in both eyes.
Ouch. My left eye is only mildly myopic at around -1.75, but my right eye is up around -5.5 or so. That's already "everything more than a few centimetres away is blurry" territory.
-
@blakeyrat said:
I mean you can get milliseconds anywhere, ticks were pretty unique.
I seem to remember QBASIC using something like ticks too, being 1/18th of a second. Maybe that was a RTC in a PC or something. At uni we made robot control software in QBASIC and to get proper timing delays one had to use PLAY (as in musical notes) instead of TIMER.
-
@Zemm said:
t uni we made robot control software in QBASIC and to get proper timing delays one had to use PLAY (as in musical notes) instead of TIMER.
You probably mean SOUND, but yes, everybody did that, and it made the speaker would sometimes click a bit when doing this.
-
@ender said:
You probably mean SOUND, but yes, everybody did that, and it made the speaker would sometimes click a bit when doing this.
I distinctly remember it being PLAY! I just looked up some docs and the parameter passed to SOUND was ticks, which has that same 1/18.2 second limitation. For PLAY you could set use the string "T240 P64" and get a 1/256 second delay. I had to look that up, due to my brain having 10 years of rust in that area. :-)
-
@Zemm said:
I seem to remember QBASIC using something like ticks too, being 1/18th of a second. Maybe that was a RTC in a PC or something.
DOS timer interrupt (interrupt 0). I never even used it and I know that. :P
-
@dhromed said:
Really? I have -7 in both eyes and at any normal viewing distance, my desktop would look much worse than that.Paint.Net has a Fragment blur filter that, combined with a tiny bit of gaussian blur, can simulate eye blur with adequate accuracy. Here's my desktop without glasses.
-
@Sutherlands said:
Really? I have -7 in both eyes and at any normal viewing distance, my desktop would look much worse than that.
It's only an approximation. Mine's a little worse as well. Its basically what I see when I'm 40cm away from the screen. If yours is in fact "much worse" then you probably have a diffent cylinder and other... things... with your eye. IANAOptometrist.
Let's compare status sheets!
-
@SilentRunner said:
Helix, why should I thank Christ for McAffe [sic] and that other stuff. What did he have to do with it?
Up until the blasphemy I was starting to shed some tears for your predicament. Poor guy. Can't find a laptop. Drip drip.
Well, according to your crackpot cult, Jesus is God and God is omnipotent and created everything.
You can't just take the credit for the flowers and the rainbows without acknowledging the fuck ups, dumbass.
-
@SilentRunner said:
Helix, why should I thank Christ for McAffe [sic] and that other stuff. What did he have to do with it?
Up until the blasphemy I was starting to shed some tears for your predicament. Poor guy. Can't find a laptop. Drip drip.
I am not sure where this comes under blasphemy anyhow?
-
@dhromed said:
@Sutherlands said:
Really? I have -7 in both eyes and at any normal viewing distance, my desktop would look much worse than that.
It's only an approximation. Mine's a little worse as well. Its basically what I see when I'm 40cm away from the screen. If yours is in fact "much worse" then you probably have a diffent cylinder and other... things... with your eye. IANAOptometrist.
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether the glass looks emptier like this?...or like this?
-
@da Doctah said:
+1@dhromed said:
@Sutherlands said:
Really? I have -7 in both eyes and at any normal viewing distance, my desktop would look much worse than that.
It's only an approximation. Mine's a little worse as well. Its basically what I see when I'm 40cm away from the screen. If yours is in fact "much worse" then you probably have a diffent cylinder and other... things... with your eye. IANAOptometrist.
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether the glass looks emptier like this?...or like this?
-
I wear contacts; -9 in the left eye and -8.5 in the right eye. I am lucky however to have virtually no astigmatism.
-
@da Doctah said:
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
An optometrist asks whether the glass looks emptier like this?...or like this?
My colleagues had to ask why I was chuckling.
-
@Sutherlands said:
@da Doctah said:
A pessimist sees the glass as half empty.
+1An optometrist asks whether the glass looks emptier like this?...or like this?
-10
