An 18 pound $9000 laptop

Page 2 of 2<12
May 8th, 2017 at 8:17:19 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 328
Posts: 11333
Quote: Dalex64
The Commodore SX-64 weighed 23 pounds.


The old portables were heavy in large part due to the CRT screen. My Toshiba had a revolutionary (for the time) plasma screen, not too different from today's flat screens in appearance, but much different in resolution. At the time, color was outrageously expensive, too. So I had to settle for a CGA resolution with shades of orange. It was still heavy due to the power source, floppy drive and HD.

I think what would most amaze today's generation, is that the portables had no battery at all. They had to be plugged in to a wall socket to work.

Mine, BTW, was the backup for the office PC. It never actually had to perform in that role, but I did take some work home to process there.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
June 9th, 2017 at 10:37:44 PM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5241
Figured this was a good place to put a pic of Samsung's new Super-Ultra-Wide monitor.

No one has ever proven I am not God.
June 9th, 2017 at 11:31:55 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 735
Posts: 8558
Quote: rxwine
Figured this was a good place to put a pic of Samsung's new Super-Ultra-Wide monitor.


So instead of standard HD which is 16:9 aspect ratio, this screen is 32:9 aspect ratio for only $1500. I guess you don't have to set up double screens anymore.

June 12th, 2017 at 10:06:08 AM permalink
Ayecarumba
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 85
Posts: 1409
It actually looks like the equivalent of three monitors. Crazy.
June 13th, 2017 at 6:08:15 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 735
Posts: 8558
Quote: Ayecarumba
It actually looks like the equivalent of three monitors. Crazy.


It's actually like two 28" monitors side by side. They are emphasizing that it is much better than two monitors because there is no bezel in between and you don't have to move them individually.



Still at $1500 it would be a bizarre thing to watch movies on. For the same price you could probably get a big screen 4K television which might be just as immersive for games even though it doesn't catch you peripheral vision as much.

You would need a 70" TV (actually 69.3") to have an equivalent screen area.

This monitor just says pure geek


A big screen TV you could play games and have friends over.
July 14th, 2017 at 10:06:08 AM permalink
rxwine
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 119
Posts: 5241
In the world of big, Samsung has Demo'd a 33 ft wide 4 k LED screen in S. Korea. To be used in movie theaters. (or possibly by the ultra wealthy)
No one has ever proven I am not God.
July 14th, 2017 at 3:29:28 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 735
Posts: 8558
Quote: rxwine
In the world of big, Samsung has Demo'd a 33 ft wide 4 k LED screen in S. Korea. To be used in movie theaters. (or possibly by the ultra wealthy)


A typical movie screen is between 45 and 65 feet wide, So this LED screen at 33'-34' wide will be much smaller, but it should be a lot brighter. No price was released, but it will no doubt appeal to the ultra wealthy.

The current largest screen for home use is 22 feet and costs $549,000. That seems like an outrageous amount of money, and I can't imagine this new Samsung screen will cost anywhere near that much.
Page 2 of 2<12