Widescreen Sat Nav.

In article ,
says...
foghollow writes:

The ICL Perq had a page-shaped screen.

Some did, and some didn't. Actually, most did, as it was the cheaper
option. A4 portrait, A3 landscape. Both paper white. I used to have
one of each. Very nice screens, until the flyback blew.

Strangely, didn't catch on.

I don't think it was the scren that was the problem, though.

Remember too that VDU terminals to mainframes existed long before
any office app was dreamt up.

My memory of the glass TTYs is that they were somewhat squarer than TV
tubes.


I have this memory also.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

In article 180c1300-e9f1-474a-b2a0-85d1fd35b8f2
@a35g2000prf.googlegroups.com, says...
On 27 Nov, 15:05, August West wrote:
foghollow writes:
The ICL Perq had a page-shaped screen.

Some did, and some didn't. Actually, most did, as it was the cheaper
option. A4 portrait, A3 landscape. Both paper white. I used to have
one of each. Very nice screens, until the flyback blew.

Strangely, didn't catch on.

I don't think it was the scren that was the problem, though.

Remember too that VDU terminals to mainframes existed long before
any office app was dreamt up.

My memory of the glass TTYs is that they were somewhat squarer than TV
tubes.

Nope, still 4:3.
http://www.lions-wing.net/lessons/hardware/3270-01.jpg

Doc

That's not the ops console of a CDC Cyber 175 though, is it?
It's not a Tektronix 4015, either.
--
Snob? Were I a snob, I wouldn't be talking to you.

In message , foghollow
writes


That's not the ops console of a CDC Cyber 175 though, is it?
It's not a Tektronix 4015, either.

What a wonderfulimage:
http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/gallery/ral/med/r10948m.jpg

--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes
In article ,
foghollow wrote:
4:3 is near ideal for 2 A4's side by side. ;-)


'A' range paper sizes have an aspect ratio of root2, 4:3 isn't nearly
wide enough. I submit, sirs, that the true purpose of widescreen is to
have 2 pages side by side plus a toolbar or three at the sides


Actually of course if you take a bit at the top and bottom for toolbars,
4:3 is fine for two pages side by side.

Which is how I often use it - but with tool bar at the top.
AOL


But I'd rather have dual monitors.

I think I'd find that confusing. Like much else.
And a little inconvenient when travelling.

I was annoyed by my 16:9 laptop screen when I first got it, but prefer
it now to a 4:3.




--
bof at bof dot me dot uk

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 13:51:16 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article
,
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:
On 27 Nov, 10:24, "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article
,
Dr Hfuhruhurr wrote:

My satnav is widescreen. It always has been.
It's called an AtoZ

Heh heh. Comes with the need for perfect vision to read it -
especially on a dark night. And preferably someone to read it for you
and do the navigation. Many have moved on. ;-)

I know, I know. But I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of
times I think to myself "A sat-nav would be useful right about now". I
like to know where I'm going before I set out*. The AtoZ is just for
backup and rarely used. *Michelin or AA route planner

Fine if you can always pre-plan every journey. And stick religiously to
the route. And have an A-Z for every town you may visit. Which will likely
cost more than a sat nav. ;-)

It's one of those things you really don't know just how convenient it is -
until you've used one. Bit like a mobile phone or computer. Of course you
can exist perfectly well without one - but why would you want to?

My Satnav has changed my life! I can travel nearly anywhere in the
country, dropping off and picking up patients for Papworth and
Addenbrookes hospitals. It would be a right bugger referring to a map
all the time. Still, I do tend to ignore my Satnav at times.

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:14:46 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
charles wrote:
It's one of those things you really don't know just how convenient it
is - until you've used one. Bit like a mobile phone or computer. Of
course you can exist perfectly well without one - but why would you
want to?

at least you still have the knowledge of how read a (paper) map. Many
people now don't have the ability to do mental arithmetic since the
arrival of the pocket calculator:

I'm sure there are plenty of skills one doesn't use much these days since
the advent of technology. Like hunting and killing one's own food. ;-)

That's not technology! That's Tescos!

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:06:04 +0000, August West
wrote:

Dr Hfuhruhurr writes:

On 27 Nov, 13:04, foghollow wrote:
5B
Remember too that VDU terminals to mainframes existed long before
any office app was dreamt up.

Based on....... standard CRT technology of the time i.e. TVs.

Oscilloscope tubes predate TVs.

Academy ratio cinema screens predate oscilloscopes :-)

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:44:20 +0000, bof
wrote:

In message , foghollow
writes


That's not the ops console of a CDC Cyber 175 though, is it?
It's not a Tektronix 4015, either.

What a wonderfulimage:
http://www.chilton-computing.org.uk/gallery/ral/med/r10948m.jpg

I know! Those sideburns!

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 15:20:29 +0000 (GMT), "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
foghollow wrote:
4:3 is near ideal for 2 A4's side by side. ;-)


'A' range paper sizes have an aspect ratio of root2, 4:3 isn't nearly
wide enough. I submit, sirs, that the true purpose of widescreen is to
have 2 pages side by side plus a toolbar or three at the sides


Actually of course if you take a bit at the top and bottom for toolbars,
4:3 is fine for two pages side by side.

Which is how I often use it - but with tool bar at the top.

But I'd rather have dual monitors.

I think I'd find that confusing. Like much else.

I find getting up in the morning confusing :-)

Marky P.

On Tue, 27 Nov 2007 14:04:16 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
wrote:

On 2007-11-27, Roderick Stewart wrote:
In article , ChrisM wrote:
Who in their right mind would want one of these?
What possible advantage is there is being able to
see more in one direction than the other?
Obviously the answer is none, so why do people
buy them, is it simply because they are brainwashed by
the word widescreen?

Gosh, I think this could actually be the first time I agree with one of your*
posts!!
A square or even a 'tall-screen' is better for SatNav,

But people obviously think WideScreen is best, so they want to buy*
Widescreen SatNavs.

The same argument probably applies to computer screens. One of the earliest
uses for a desktop computer - and still a common one today - was an office
machine to type stuff that would be printed on A4 paper that would almost
invariably be required in "portrait" orientation. On the basis of logic, it's
strange that the normal orientation for a computer screen wasn't the same, so I
assume logic had nothing to do with it. Computer monitors superficially
resemble television sets, so they would have looked odd turned the other way.


With the lighter LCD monitors and improved software, it would be possible
to make a monitor you could rotate 90 degrees at will, to suit what you're
doing at the time. The OS could easily re-orient the picture to be
the right way up.

That's what happens with the i-phone.

Marky P.