http://www.acer.com/aspireone/
1kg, WiFi, good-size keyboard, screen 1024×600, webcam, 15 seconds to start. VGA output.
After that, it’s truly absurd to go for a laptop PC.
http://www.acer.com/aspireone/
1kg, WiFi, good-size keyboard, screen 1024×600, webcam, 15 seconds to start. VGA output.
After that, it’s truly absurd to go for a laptop PC.
Ad agencies appear to have woken up to the superiority of “portrait” (“vertical”) setting of displays compared to standard “landscape” (“horizontal”): that is, how much more natural and life-like the images look on them.
I have already written about how standard computer video interfaces are anything but natural, especially with the advent of widescreen displays.
Why has that happened? Likely for two reasons. First of all, computer screens were originally built using standard TV technology. Television started as a kind of “remote theatre” (most of it, still is). Theatre stages are wide rather than deep, because all actors need to be placed in front of the public and it’s pretty hard to stack them up…the original 4:3 landscape format for TV sets was therefore not a bad choice (even more so, the contemporary 16:9 format).
Furthermore, perhaps since the times of Xerox’s Palo Alto workshop that heralded the era of computer graphics, a PC’s screen has been meant to be a “desktop”…literally, the top surface of one’s desk. Now, office desks are usually rectangular, and this is because of the way we can move our arms (reaching out is much easier on the sides than straight in front of us).
But most of us use computers for reading and writing messages, for blogs and comments, for developing programming code, and in most cases to surf the internet. I am not sure anybody pretends that their few square inches of screen are actually their desktop?
Instead, as books and newspapers are usually in portrait format, and people’s bodies and faces are usually vertically -oriented (that’s why it is called portrait), and even the windows in most buildings are taller than wider…our real-life world is full of portrait-oriented features with which we interact.
It would all look obviously much more natural if we had portrait computer screens. In some cases, even portrait-oriented TV sets.
And that’s in fact what is happening in some airports, where TV screens are being mounted vertically to display advertisements. Whatever is shown, such as panoramas or products, the impression is of looking into a window into another real world, rather than the artificial theatre of television.
So if your screen and your PC’s graphics card allow portrait-orientation, do not hesitate and try it out.
Me, I have no intention to go back to “landscape”.
Seven and more years later, we can definitely close down the story of the Millennium Bug as one of the greatest wastes of money in the history of Humanity.
In hindsight, it has been as useful and as value-generating as one of those chain-mail messages, just a different kind of computer virus.
Nothing of significance happened on Dec 31, 1999. Perhaps nothing at all, zilch, nada, niente (but it’s hard to demonstrate a negative).
Even the stories with the flimsiest relevance and interest should have surfaced by now.
People that were actually employed in fixing the fantasy Bug don’t usually like such a train of thought. Somebody actually tried to tell me the Bug caused no trouble because of the dedication of so many people and resources to fix it.
I do not buy any such excuse.
Surely a lot of people worked on the Bug very professionally and conscientiously.
But then we all know any kind of software does contain errors…the Millennium Bug Fixes by miracle or extraordinary coincidence, not even one. How can that be possible?
And how can it be likely that everybody everywhere on the planet lost their capacity to make mistakes in the process of fixing the Bug? Italy was a well-known laggard on considering the Bug, and in Kenya there was no funding to do anything until March 2000 (three months after the Bug should have stricken).