|
I'm fairly competent when it comes to using computers and doing my own thing. Most institutions have caught on with technology and are doing a decent job, namely junior colleges and the like. However, there is one thing that pisses me off to no end... 1024x768. LCD monitors. Is 1024x768 really that much better over 1280x1024 when the loving monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024? While we're at it, let's not turn on Cleartype and make everybody gouge their eyes out. I think that the argument of "oh my god, the text is too small!" is bullshit considering what text looks like on an improperly setup LCD. I'm not asking for the world, I'm asking for text to be readable and not have huge blocks of pixels that look out of place. LCDs are different than CRTs, and the image doesn't degrade quite as nicely. I'll actually broaden that to LCDs in general. gently caress companies who make TN panels and try to upsell them as something that they aren't. This, of course, is related to the retarded population which buys the crappy panels up, so there's actually an inverse relationship between price and quality. The people who are responsible for this upswing of TN panels are the same ones that use them at 1024x768.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 16:44 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:58 |
|
|
Phone posted:LCD monitors. Is 1024x768 really that much better over 1280x1024 when the loving monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024? While we're at it, let's not turn on Cleartype and make everybody gouge their eyes out. I think that the argument of "oh my god, the text is too small!" is bullshit considering what text looks like on an improperly setup LCD. There would be a lot less of this if there were an easily and universally compatible way of increasing text size in Windows. You can turn the DPI up but half the time you'll end up with text that runs off the edge of the button it's on and things like that.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 16:47 |
|
|
I don't like widescreen monitors. But then you folks in the Asus eeepc thread already knew that.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 17:11 |
|
|
Phone posted:LCD monitors. Is 1024x768 really that much better over 1280x1024 when the loving monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024? While we're at it, let's not turn on Cleartype and make everybody gouge their eyes out. I think that the argument of "oh my god, the text is too small!" is bullshit considering what text looks like on an improperly setup LCD. I work at one of my school's computer labs and talked about the resolution issue with my boss. In our case, there were two problems. First, instead of being on a three-year cycle for hardware, the higher-ups decided to get extended warranties on everything, so whenever a monitor dies we get either a 1024x768 15" or a 1280x1024 17", depending on what Dell has at the moment. It would be impractical to keep separate disk images for computers with different monitors, and even more impractical to reimage every time a monitor gets replaced. Second, the Americans with Disabilities Act apparently requires that text be a certain size by default, and 1280x1024 on a 17" may be shy of that requirement. The good news is that access to display settings isn't restricted since changes are undone once the student logs off anyway. In any case, I doubt that most people even notice it. I'd guess that at least a quarter of students' laptops are running at the wrong resolution, and they never seem to realize that images look stretched and text looks terrible.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 17:38 |
|
|
What's worse than 1024x768? Middle-aged retards with > 20" CRT's running 800x600x16bpp with large fonts and icons. Also, these sloths of life tend to own those smileys from the banners that go "SAY SOMETHING! OMIGOD NO WAI?!" etc etc. I have no idea how these people manage to do *anything* with such a desktop. *late edit* It hurts my soul to change their settings back when I'm done fixing their crap (read: removing all the porn-related viruses). \/\/\/\/\/\/Usually pressing refresh will get rid of that crap Mr. Wilson fucked around with this message at Apr 25, 2008 around 17:59 |
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 17:44 |
|
|
My monitor's max resolution is 1024x768, it's a 15" LCD monitor. It works for me, and it fits in my strangely-constructed desk. I could fit a bigger monitor on it in a different way but then there'd be no room for my oddly shaped printer. Yay for secondhand computing! My main gripe about computers nowadays is popup ads. They were a big problem a few years ago, but then browsers started coming with popup blockers built in. Now I guess people have figured out ways around that, by using Flash. You go to a website and your entire screen turns into a popup ad for trucks or something, and you have to look at it for a couple seconds to find the "Close" button or the thing that says "skip this ad". Are there any Firefox extensions that block this crap?
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 17:58 |
|
|
Why in the gently caress is it 2008 and applications are still stealing focus in mid-type?
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:06 |
|
|
Some dipshit in my electronics class will disable automatic updates on EVERY computer he touches. He'll go into services.msc and DISABLE the Automatic Updates service (preventing you from installing any kind of security updates, even through IE) because 1) "Microsoft's updates are insecure!" and 2) "Windows updates doesn't do anything anyways, plus it constantly reminds me to install updates which is annoying as hell." He was also recently voted president of our school's IEEE chapter. I am going to murder him in his sleep.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:11 |
|
revmoo posted:Why in the gently caress is it 2008 and applications are still stealing focus in mid-type? "Hey... AVG has updated successfully!" Don't care, gently caress off, I'm trying to type my password. What's worse is when a program opens multiple windows overtop of your current app. Also, any stupid status update from the system tray that opens a little/giant message box above itself.
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:12 |
|
|
Phone posted:LCD monitors. Is 1024x768 really that much better over 1280x1024 when the loving monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024? There's a perfectly reasonable explanation for this. Sysprep sets it to 1024x768 unless you specify otherwise in the .ini file. Now, there are several reasons why the person making the image may not set it, including incompetency, so I'm not ruling that out. I'm just saying that it may not be a conscious decision. Also, cleartype in XP looks like poo poo on a large percentage of monitors, so why turn it on? As for something I come across daily - 7zip or ultimatezip or whatever free zip software the person who made our current XP images used for that particular image. When asked why there's a zip utility on the image, the response was "so they can open zip files." 
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:14 |
|
|
Mr. Wilson posted:What's worse than 1024x768? They do this where I work, but it's usually older people. 800x600 on a 19" LCD  Then they bitch because they can't see the whole web page (without scrolling) in our ERP system, most of the buttons that do stuff on the page are on the right side of the page, so they think they don't exist. Not to mention the owner does incredibly complex drawings in MS Paint. 4 MB BMP here it comes!
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:16 |
|
|
Melting Eggs posted:Some dipshit in my electronics class will disable automatic updates on EVERY computer he touches. Kill him... loving kill him. I worked for a company that may or may not rhyme with Meek Squab for a few years and there are still XP machines in this day and age that Do not have SP2. Similarly, I got in an argument the other day with someone because he didn't want to upgrade to SP2 because he thought it was gonna cost him $200+.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:29 |
|
|
screenshots in .doc, jokes in .doc, jokes in .pps, screenshots in .pps, 23meg camera JPEGs, ... I pretty much hate everything the non-internet-savvy crowd emails.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:30 |
|
|
Mr. Wilson posted:What's worse than 1024x768? Don't forget they'll be running at 60Hz too so whenever you look at the screen it gives you an epileptic seizure.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:36 |
|
|
BloodDragyn posted:Kill him... loving kill him. I love that this attitude has at least faded here, at least. People are now willingly slogging through all kinds of odd issues with SP3 judging by the other thread, yet when I first started posting here I remember that there was no end to the idiots trying to justify why they just. would. not. install SP2.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:37 |
|
|
There's a lot of complaints about windows updates and SR's but seriously, two words. Vista SP1 can you say ftw? yes, yes you can.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:45 |
|
|
revmoo posted:Why in the gently caress is it 2008 and applications are still stealing focus in mid-type? I think my favorite poo poo ever is when something that communicates with the entire world somehow still has focus while I'm typing my password. Thanks, the one password I have that isn't randomly generated has gotten out (root on my system) and now I have to change it.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:46 |
|
|
Ever try to explain to an end user what "focus" means in regard to the above post? Definitely in my top 10 most nerve wracking things to explain
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:48 |
|
|
HPL posted:I don't like widescreen monitors. But then you folks in the Asus eeepc thread already knew that. Gouge one of your eyes out then because you have a rectangular field of vision.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:52 |
|
|
Windows forms that don't behave right. I should always be able to Ctrl+A or triple click to select all text. Also, companies that go out of their way to program things that the OS has already taken care of, usually resulting in less usability. I've got an app that sits in my system tray that brings up its own fancy skinned menu when you click it. This menu disappears under apps that are set to be always on top, even though every other menu that comes out of the system tray displays just fine.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 18:53 |
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:Gouge one of your eyes out then because you have a rectangular field of vision. Also, digital cameras have rectangular fields of vision. Humans don't.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:07 |
|
|
MOTHER loving FLASH WEBSITES!!! 6-7 Flash ads on one website. Make my computer crawl! My phone runs Windows mobile on a 312MHz processor and is slower than gently caress and freezes up for no loving reason.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:09 |
|
|
DaveNull posted:What's that got to do with computer monitors? Human vision is wider than it is tall, which is why not liking widescreen monitors is retarded. That's the point.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:22 |
|
|
DaveNull posted:Also, digital cameras have rectangular fields of vision. Humans don't. This is completely wrong.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:22 |
|
|
Erwin posted:Human vision is wider than it is tall, which is why not liking widescreen monitors is retarded. That's the point. This. And as a matter of fact, our field of vision is actually even wider than the 16:9/16:10 employed by TVs and LCDs right now.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:29 |
|
|
Cool Matty posted:This. And as a matter of fact, our field of vision is actually even wider than the 16:9/16:10 employed by TVs and LCDs right now. Maybe so, but it's not good for reading text. I actually prefer reading things on a 4:3 monitor than a 16:9. Maybe it's because just about every document I read other than tables and charts is in portrait mode.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:35 |
|
|
revmoo posted:Why in the gently caress is it 2008 and applications are still stealing focus in mid-type? This is worse on OSX where applications normally never steal focus. Adobe Updater likes to steal focus every time it opens a stupid update helper, which can be two or three times for each app getting updated. gently caress you Adobe, I'm working here.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:36 |
|
|
The fact that notepad still can't handle files with bare linefeeds. Programs with delusions of grandeur, which think they are the only reason you own the computer, and try to take it over as much as possible - like automatically setting themselves as the default program for virtually every common filetype, or putting shortcuts everywhere. I don't want a shortcut on the desktop, in the start menu, in the system tray, and in the quicklaunch bar - especially not when they're for the program's loving settings editor that I'm likely to run once. Disorganised files. Directories and subdirectories have been available for 40+ years. Yet you can still open someone's "Work" folder and find 10,000 files with unhelpful names like "Document125". 8.3 filenames. People still seriously do this. We've had long filenames for over a decade now. Also filenames can support spaces, so stop putting dots and underscores in them - it makes it a nightmare trying to read a long list of files. Top-posting in email replies, so that you have to scroll up and down to follow the order things were written in. gently caress you MS outlook for doing this by default!  PDF files on the web. Useful if I want to download a massivle document for printing, lovely when it's a single page that could have been done just as easily in html. Sweevo fucked around with this message at Apr 25, 2008 around 19:52 |
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:38 |
|
|
Sweevo posted:8.3 filenames. People still serious do this. We've had long filenames for over a decade now. Also filenames can support spaces, so stop putting dots and underscores in them - it makes it a nightmare trying to read a long list of files. A guy I work with bitches at me to this day when I put spaces in file names. He keeps saying "It breaks my scripts blah blah blah use underscores" and my canned response is put your poo poo in quotes, at which point he walks off in a huff. It amuses me to no end.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:46 |
|
|
Sweevo posted:Also filenames can support spaces, so stop putting dots and underscores in them - it makes it a nightmare trying to read a long list of files. Disagree and here's my argument. First point. Simply Web Publishing, I don't use spaces in filenames on the offchance I have to grab them from a web server eventually and then it becomes a pain in the rear end. Second point. PDFs make it wildly easier to control font, color, face, printing abilities etc.. If it's a page that is not manipulatable and is going to be printed. It should be a PDF. (although I do agree with the spirit of your rant, browsers do need to incorporate this more cleanly) e: BangersInMyKnickers posted:A guy I work with bitches at me to this day when I put spaces in file names. He keeps saying "It breaks my scripts blah blah blah use underscores" and my canned response is put your poo poo in quotes, at which point he walks off in a huff. It amuses me to no end. I partly agree, but you can't direct a browser to an address with a space in it either.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:46 |
|
|
gently caress
nail fucked around with this message at Jun 7, 2012 around 14:41 |
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 19:53 |
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:This is completely wrong. I'd like to see a diagram showing what part of the human visual field is rectangular. Showing that it's wider than it is tall doesn't count, because that's obvious.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:01 |
|
|
HPL posted:Maybe so, but it's not good for reading text. I actually prefer reading things on a 4:3 monitor than a 16:9. Maybe it's because just about every document I read other than tables and charts is in portrait mode. So don't maximize your windows. I used to maximize every window until I got a 1920x1200 monitor. Now they're all sized the way they should be and are spread out in a useful way, even on my work laptop at 1280x800. A widescreen monitor doesn't mean all of your text has to span from one side to the other.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:03 |
|
|
File names should be consistent. I don't care if there are spaces or underscores and pictures of dead hookers in them, as long as all files of the same type are named the same way you can do whatever your heart desires. As for my personal pet peeves, EVERY SINGLE LINE OF CODE MY PREDECESSOR WROTE. Seriously, how can you have a navigation block that deals with current, next and previous pages where the variables last_page represents the current page and the variable page equals the next page? Additionally, how the gently caress do you actually design a table for an app that instead uses IDs to determine sequence, but also contains a sequence column that is used for nothing but holding sequence numbers that are never used anywhere. Oh yeah and the IDs are auto-increments so adding something to the middle of the app is nigh impossible.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:06 |
|
|
DaveNull posted:Are you a robot or something? I'm not, and there's really nothing rectangular about my field of vision. It's not even squarish or oblong.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:07 |
|
|
hyperborean posted:Right. If you are reading something your eyes are focused closely and moving fast along a narrow line, so moving all the way back and forth across a widescreen monitor many times is bad. CRTs are 3:4 because it's cheaper or more possible to make them that way. Books and newspaper columns aren't narrow for the same reason, that's because it's better to read that way. You don't want to maximize a window that you are reading. They touched it once because they added the ability to open larger text files (there used to be a limit).
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:13 |
|
|
BloodDragyn posted:I partly agree, but you can't direct a browser to an address with a space in it either.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:20 |
|
|
Cool Matty posted:They touched it once because they added the ability to open larger text files (there used to be a limit). They didn't fix that poo poo either. Notepad tends to freeze if you load a big (1MB+) text file, but wordpad still works ok. Also, why the gently caress doesn't Notepad support various CR/LF formats? I hate opening up some (Unix formatted) readme file and seeing all the text in one big lump with those square characters everywhere. Wordpad reads them just fine, so why not have Notepad do it too?
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:23 |
|
|
BangersInMyKnickers posted:A guy I work with bitches at me to this day when I put spaces in file names. He keeps saying "It breaks my scripts blah blah blah use underscores" and my canned response is put your poo poo in quotes, at which point he walks off in a huff. It amuses me to no end. You're that rear end in a top hat.
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:23 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2013 07:58 |
|
|
Bob Morales posted:You're that rear end in a top hat. So you're that jerk who can't properly escape special (but perfectly valid) characters in paths which work great with all other standard utilities? 
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2008 20:27 |
|
