Search Results

Search found 150 results on 6 pages for '1080p'.

Page 2/6 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >

  • How does a winkydink Teradici offer high res, full FPS, 3D rendering on ESXi 5 VDIs for AutoCAD/SolidWorks/1080p YouTube applications?

    - by BlueToast
    How does such a small Teradici card ![enter image description here][1] offer high resolution, full FPS 3D graphics (1:38) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXA4QMmfY5Y&feature=player_detailpage#t=97s for ESXi 5.0/5.1 VDI environments? We're shooting for an AutoCAD/SolidWorks/YouTube 1080p capable environment. I can't see how such a small and low profile card could possibly have the horsepower to handle such GPU computations for a big environment like that. We're going to have up to 64 VDIs per server, and are a 500-1000 employee count sized company. Someone enlighten me please! Determining which route to go (between RemoteFX and VMware View/PCoIP) and the hardware (NVIDIA 4GB non-Quadro/Tesla GPUs vs Teradici card). Servers have three 4x, three 8x, and one 16x PCI-E lane. Two of the 8x lanes will be occupied by SAS RAID cards.

    Read the article

  • Why does 1080p through a VGA cable fit my HDTV but is oversized when through an HDMI cable?

    - by GraemeF
    I have put together a new PC with a XFX GeForce GTX 260 graphics card and have it connected to my HDTV. First, I used an old VGA cable with a DVI to VGA adapter and plugged it in to my HDTV's VGA port. Running at 1920x1080 it fit the screen perfectly. Now, to avoid running another cable across the room, I have connected it with a DVI to HDMI cable to my TV's HDMI port, and the desktop at 1920x1080 is cropped by the edge of the screen. I have "fixed" the cropping by using NVIDIA's "Adjust desktop size and position" tool, which created a screen resolution of 1814x1022 to fit the screen, but this is no longer the TV's native resolution and confuses some software (e.g. WoW). Why does VGA work as expected, but HDMI is scaled up? Can it be avoided?

    Read the article

  • 1080p HD TV + what is minimum spec pc required to stream HD movie files to it?

    - by rutherford
    I want to stream hi-def (non flash-based) movies from my future minimum spec pc to my network-ready HDTV. What I want to know is a) when streaming from a computer (local wifi network), is the computer's cpu/video/ram resources used to the same extent as it would be if playing back on the computers local screen? If not what are the differences? b) So with streaming hd content what is the minimum spec processor I should go for, if i) only one TV is acting as client ii) two TVs are simultaneous clients.

    Read the article

  • Large resolution differences

    - by Robin Betka
    I want to develop a game on multiple devices such as PC, Android or IOS. Want it to be in 1080p, but that means a massive scale down for the smartphones. I know how to do that, just render everything on a 1080p rendertarget and then render it on the screen smaller. But what should I do so that the scalling down doesn't look bad and blury? I can't do it vector based or anything because the sprites simply need a specific size. Should I make the sprites power of two size to get some nice mipmapping? And which other settings can I do? Or should I rather go with a lower resolution but then having a little bit worse look PC version? The performance seems not to be a problem for me, so would be sad not using 1080p because of other problems.

    Read the article

  • How to get bearable 2D and 3D performance on AMD Radeon HD 6950?

    - by l0b0
    I have had an AMD Radeon HD 6950 (i.e., Cayman series) for a couple years now, and I have tried a lot of combinations of drivers and settings with terrible results. I'm completely at a loss as to how to proceed. The open source driver has much better 2D performance, but it offloads all OpenGL rendering to the CPU. What I've tried so far: All the latest stable Ubuntu releases in the period, plus one Linux Mint release. All the latest stable AMD Catalyst Proprietary Display Drivers, and currently 13.1. The unofficial wiki installation instructions for every Ubuntu version and the semi-official Ubuntu instructions. All the tips and tweaks I could find for Minecraft (Optifine, reducing settings to minimum), VLC (postprocessing at minimum, rendering at native video size), Catalyst Control Center (flipped every lever in there) and X11 (some binary toggles I can no longer remember). Results: Typically 13-15 FPS in Minecraft, 30 max (100+ in Windows with the same driver version). Around 10 FPS in Team Fortress 2 using the official Steam client. Choppy video playback, in Flash and with VLC. CPU use goes through the roof when rendering video (150% for 1080p on YouTube in Chromium, 100% for 1080p H264 in VLC). glxgears shows 12.5 FPS when maximized. fgl_glxgears shows 10 FPS when maximized. Hardware details from lshw: Motherboard ASUS P6X58D-E CPU Intel Core i7 CPU 950 @ 3.07GHz (never overclocked; 64 bit) 6 GB RAM Video card product "Cayman PRO [Radeon HD 6950]", vendor "Hynix Semiconductor (Hyundai Electronics)" 2 x 1920x1200 monitors, both connected with HDMI. I feel I must be missing something absolutely fundamental here. Is there no accelerated support for anything on 64-bit architectures? Does a dual monitor completely mess up the driver? $ fglrxinfo display: :0 screen: 0 OpenGL vendor string: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. OpenGL renderer string: AMD Radeon HD 6900 Series OpenGL version string: 4.2.11995 Compatibility Profile Context $ glxinfo | grep 'direct rendering' direct rendering: Yes I am currently using the open source driver, with the following results: Full frame rate and low CPU load when playing 1080p video. Black screen (but music in the background) in Team Fortress 2. Similar performance in Minecraft as the Catalyst driver. In hindsight obvious, since both end up offloading the rendering to the CPU. My /var/log/Xorg.0.log after upgrading to AMD Catalyst 13.1. Some possibly important lines: (WW) Falling back to old probe method for fglrx (WW) fglrx: No matching Device section for instance (BusID PCI:0@3:0:1) found The generated xorg.conf. The disabled "monitor" 0-DFP9 is actually an A/V receiver, which sometimes confuses the monitor drivers when turned on/off (but not in Windows). All three "monitor" devices are connected with HDMI. Edit: Chris Carter's suggestion to use the xorg-edgers PPA (Catalyst 13.1) resulted in some improvement, but still pretty bad performance overall: Minecraft stabilizes at 13-17 FPS, but at least the CPU load is "only" at 45-60%. Still 150% CPU use for 1080p video rendering on YouTube in Chromium. Massive improvement for 1080p H264 in VLC: 40-50% CPU use and no visible jitter glxgears performance about doubled to 25-30 FPS when maximized. fgl_glxgears still at ~10 FPS when maximized.

    Read the article

  • Can Linux play HDMI 1.4a 3D stereoscopic content?

    - by SofaKng
    I'm aware that there are no Bluray players for Linux but I'm wondering if it's possible to play Full 3D HD (1080p, Side-By-Side) MKV files (or Bluray BDMV folders, etc). Full 3D HD files are actually two 1080p frames "side-by-side" so the effective resolution is 3840x1200. In order to play these properly the software needs to switch to TV into 3D mode (or however HDMI 1.4a works). I don't think simply playing the 3840x1200 resolution file will work so are there any options out there?

    Read the article

  • How do I keep windows XP from automatically changing the screen resolution?

    - by roamn
    I have an Asus EEEBox (EB202, intel GMA 950) hooked up to my 1080p TV (DVI-HDMI cable). I use it to watch standard definition movies and TV shows. I prefer to run at 1280x720 so that I can see things more easily, but every time I turn off the TV, then back on again, the resolution defaults to 1080p (1920x1080). How can I force a specific resolution? If that's not possible, is there a way to use a batch script to switch to the desired resolution faster?

    Read the article

  • How can I get a 1920x1080 resolution?

    - by Sam T.
    I a newbie Linux and have just installed Ubuntu in a dual boot with Windows 7. I love the interface of Ubuntu but unfortunately I can only get a 800x600 or 1024x728 resolution with black bars all around the screen. I have an nVidia GTX 570 graphics card and an Asus 1080p 23" monitor. What may be of note is that I had to use the nomodeset command on installation of the boot would get stuck at a line with "nouveau", which I understand is to do with the drivers. Additionally, when I type in xrandr to the terminal, it comes up with the error message "failed to get size of gamma for output default". I guess what I am looking for here is someone who could explain to me really simply the steps I have to take to get a full 1080p resolution, at which point I am sure i will become a great fan of the OS! Thanks in advance, Sam T.

    Read the article

  • No Sound via HDMI

    - by Goony Hill
    I have ubuntu installed on a Acer aspire revo 3700 intel atom processor with nvidia ion graphics this is plugged into a celcus 32 inch TV via HDMI (1080p). The video driver shows as an nvidia which I can select. I have set the sound to play via HDMI and the output to HDMI but get no sound. I have tried a sony 1080i TV with the box but get eratic results with the graphics, but the sound picks up straight away that is there is no need to select it. The graphics on the celcus TV work but I get a dialog box showing loads of different resolutions and frequencies which I have to close manually, these appear to be attempts to set different resolutions for the TV. Am I missing some sort of screen/sound driver, if so does anyone know what might support the celcus 32 inch (1080p) tv?

    Read the article

  • What is holding up HD video conferencing on the web?

    - by Tristan
    What exactly is holding up real-time HD video conferencing on the web? Live, low-latency, video has lots of great applications beyond video chat: for instance, virtual desktops / vnc, remote control of applications, and server-side visualization. So what exactly are the technical barriers that remain? Existing video and remote desktop applications show latency problems are overrated for many applications. Bandwidth for many users now can easily stream 720p and even 1080p. Top-end video conferencing demos already do 1080p

    Read the article

  • If Nvidia Shield can stream a game via WiFi (~150-300Mbps), where is the 1-10Gbps wired streaming?

    - by Enigma
    Facts: It is surprising and uncharacteristic that a wireless game streaming solution is the *first to hit the market when a 1000mbps+ Ethernet connection would accomplish the same feat with roughly 6x the available bandwidth. 150-300mbps WiFi is in no way superior to a 1000mbps+ LAN connection aside from well wireless mobility. Throughout time, (since the internet was created) wired services have **always come first yet in this particular case, the opposite seems to be true. We had wired internet first, wired audio streaming, and wired video streaming all before their wireless counterparts. Why? Largely because the wireless bandwidth was and is inferior. Even today despite being significantly better and capable of a lot more, it is still inferior to a wired connection. Situation: Chief among these is that NVIDIA’s Shield handheld game console will be getting a microconsole-like mode, dubbed “Shield Console Mode”, that will allow the handheld to be converted into a more traditional TV-connected console. In console mode Shield can be controlled with a Bluetooth controller, and in accordance with the higher resolution of TVs will accept 1080p game streaming from a suitably equipped PC, versus 720p in handheld mode. With that said 1080p streaming will require additional bandwidth, and while 720p can be done over WiFi NVIDIA will be requiring a hardline GigE connection for 1080p streaming (note that Shield doesn’t have Ethernet, so this is presumably being done over USB). Streaming aside, in console mode Shield will also support its traditional local gaming/application functionality. - http://www.anandtech.com/show/7435/nvidia-consolidates-game-streaming-tech-under-gamestream-brand-announces-shield-console-mode ^ This is not acceptable to me for a number of reasons not to mention the ridiculousness of having a little screen+controller unit sitting there while using a secondary controller and screen instead. That kind of redundant absurdity exemplifies how wrong of a solution that is. They need a second product for this solution without the screen or controller for it to make sense... at which point your just buying a little computer that does what most other larger computers do better. While this secondary project will provide a wired connection, it still shouldn't be necessary to purchase a Shield to have this benefit. Not only this but Intel's WiDi claims game streaming support as well - wirelessly. Where is the wired streaming? All that is required, by my understanding, is the ability to decode H.264 video compression and transmit control/feedback so by any logical comparison, one (Nvidia especially) should have no difficulty in creating an application for PC's (win32/64 environment) that does the exact same thing their android app does. I have 2 video cards capable of streaming (encoding) H.264 so by right they must be capable of decoding it I would think. I should be able to stream to my second desktop or my laptop both of which by hardware comparison are superior to the Shield. I haven't found anything stating plans to allow non-shield owners to do this. Can a third party create this software or does it hinge on some limitation that only Nvidia can overcome? Reiteration of questions: Is there a technical reason (non marketing) for why Nvidia opted to bottleneck the streaming service with a wireless connection limiting the resolution to 720p and introducing intermittent video choppiness when on a wired connection one could achieve, presumably, 1080p with significantly less or zero choppiness? Is there anything limiting developers from creating a PC/Desktop application emulating the same H.264 decoding functionality that circumvents the need to get an Nvidia Shield altogether? (It is not a matter of being too cheap to support Nvidia - I have many Nvidia cards that aren't being used. One should not have to purchase specialty hardware when = hardware already exists) Same questions go for Intel Widi also. I am just utterly perplexed that there are wireless live streaming solution and yet no wired. How on earth can wireless be the goto transmission medium? Is there another solution that takes advantage of H.264 video compression allowing live streaming over a wired connection? (*) - Perhaps this isn't the first but afaik it is the first complete package. (**) - I cant back that up with hard evidence/links but someone probably could. Edit: Maybe this will be the solution I am looking for but I still find it hard to believe that they would be the first and after wireless solutions already exist. In-home Streaming You can play all your Windows and Mac games on your SteamOS machine, too. Just turn on your existing computer and run Steam as you always have - then your SteamOS machine can stream those games over your home network straight to your TV! - http://store.steampowered.com/livingroom/SteamOS/

    Read the article

  • Fullscreen Video stutters on second monitor laptop

    - by nobrandheroes
    Fullscreen video on my new 1080p monitor is choppy when it comes from my laptop. The same video plays when not full screen. This goes for all video(Flash/MKV, etc), regardless of video resolution. I have an ATI Mobility Radeon HD 4200 Series card in my Thinkpad Edge, Turion X2 2GHz. The computer plays 1080p fine. Things I've tried: Updating Drivers Switching cables Turning Hardware Acceleration Changing video players process priority Rebooting Turning of laptop screen Turning off unused processes Nothing Works. What is the likelyhood that my laptop cannot power a 1920x1280 display?

    Read the article

  • How do I capture my second monitor using avconv?

    - by Codemonkey
    With this command: avconv -f x11grab -s 2560x1440 -i :0.0 I can stream video from my main monitor. I also have a second, 1080p monitor on which I do my gaming. I want to stream from that monitor. This doesn't work: avconv -f x11grab -s 1920x1080 -i :0.1 I assume I have to use -i :0.0 and somehow specify that it should capture 1920x1080 pixels from X position 2560 and Y position 0. My gaming monitor is placed to the right of my main monitor. Unfortunately the man page for avconv is miles long, so I haven't had any luck figuring this out on my own. I have tried Using -vf with crop like this: -vcodec libx264 ... -vf "crop=$IN_WIDTH:$IN_HEIGHT:2560:360" But that only displayed 1080p video from the top left corner of my main display.

    Read the article

  • Strange scaling when duplicating monitors with another screen

    - by Aerione
    I can't get two monitors to scale application resolutions the same way. My main monitor works normally. My second monitor however, which is set to duplicate its image onto a TV I have in my room, renders the applications in a far lower resolution than the 1080p I've set it to. Also, the mouse pointer on the second monitor is enormous, it looks 2-3 times bigger than the one on the main monitor. I've checked the "Let me choose one scaling level for all my displays", to no avail. Here are some comparison pictures. Metro on the main monitor: Metro on monitor 2 (set to 1080p and to duplicate on a TV): This issue only seem to arise when I duplicate the monitor onto the TV. Does anyone have any idea of how to solve this?

    Read the article

  • If Nvidia Shield can stream a game via wifi, why can I not do the same via ethernet to any other PC?

    - by Enigma
    I think it absurd that a wireless game streaming solution is the *first to hit the market when a 1000mbps+ Ethernet connection would accomplish the same feat with roughly 6x the available bandwidth. I can only assume that there must be some reason behind this or a limitation preventing this, but what? 150mbps wifi is in no way superior to a 1000mbps LAN connection aside from well wireless mobility. Not only that but I have a secondary laptop and desktop which should by hardware comparison completely outperform anything the Tegra in the Nvidia Shield can do. Is this all just a marketing scheme to force people to buy the shield for the streaming benefit? Chief among these is that NVIDIA’s Shield handheld game console will be getting a microconsole-like mode, dubbed “Shield Console Mode”, that will allow the handheld to be converted into a more traditional TV-connected console. In console mode Shield can be controlled with a Bluetooth controller, and in accordance with the higher resolution of TVs will accept 1080p game streaming from a suitably equipped PC, versus 720p in handheld mode. With that said 1080p streaming will require additional bandwidth, and while 720p can be done over WiFi NVIDIA will be requiring a hardline GigE connection for 1080p streaming (note that Shield doesn’t have Ethernet, so this is presumably being done over USB). Streaming aside, in console mode Shield will also support its traditional local gaming/application functionality. - http://www.anandtech.com/show/7435/nvidia-consolidates-game-streaming-tech-under-gamestream-brand-announces-shield-console-mode ^ This is not acceptable for me for a number of reasons not to mention the ridiculousness of having a little screen+controller unit sitting there while using a secondary controller and screen instead. That kind of redundant absurdity exemplifies how wrong of a solution that is. They need a second product for this solution without the screen or controller for it to make sense... at which point your just buying a little computer that does what most other larger computers do better. All that is required, by my understanding, is the ability to decode H.264 video compression and transmit control/feedback so by any logical comparison, one (Nvidia especially) should have no difficulty in creating an application for PC's (win32/64 environment) that does the exact same thing their android app does. I have 2 video cards capable of streaming (encoding) H.264 so by right they must be capable of decoding it I would think. I haven't found anything stating plans to allow non-shield owners to do this. Can a third party create this software or does it hinge on some limitation that only Nvidia can overcome? (*) - perhaps this isn't the first but afaik it is the first complete package.

    Read the article

  • Connecting Dell XPS 17/HP Pavilion dv7 (nvidia GT 650M) to Apple LED Cinema Display for 2560x1440 resolution from notebook

    - by alphaTrader
    Is there any way to run higher than 1080p resolution from a Dell XPS 15/17 or HP Pavilion laptop? Specifically, I am planning to buy Dell XPS L721X or HP Pavilion dv7-7005tx with nvidia GeForce GT 650M and connect it to the Apple LED Cinema display via mini Displayport (I don't think Thunderbolt is supported on these notebooks). The idea is to get 1080p on the notebook and 2560x1440 on the main display. Only one of the montitors is active at any time. I asked Dell and they weren't of much help.

    Read the article

  • Does Asus F8SV supports 1920*1080 resolution through DVI output? [closed]

    - by Col
    Devices: Asus F8Sv Laptop (Windows 7 ultimate, GeForce 8600m GT, display driver is 301.42, detected and downloaded from nvidia.com, VGA and DVI output interface) Gateway 23 inches LCD monitor (VGA, DVI-D with HDCP, and HDMI input) 18 pins DVI cable, VGA cable, both new. Problems: When connect laptop to monitor by VGA, resolution is automatically adapted to 1920*1080; but when using DVI connection, resolution on monitor is fixed to 1024*768, which is lower than my laptop default 1280*800. The maximum resolution in windows control panel is only 1024*768, while the Nvidia control panel provides options 1920*1080p and 1920*1080i, but clicking apply button does not work, the resolution just can not change. Possibly reason I guess: GeForce 8600m GT does not support 1920*1080 resolution through DVI outputs. Can anyone confirm it or give the real reason? edit: Problem solved by buying a HDMI to DVI-D adapter. Using this adapter and a HDMI cable, I can now enjoy 1080p movie.

    Read the article

  • nvidia: switching dvi socket

    - by lurscher
    I have Ubuntu 10.10 x86_64 with Nvidia 9800 gt and Nvidia driver version 270.41.06 My video card has two DVI sockets, but I only use the single monitor configuration. Now, I think the main DVI socket might be busted, so I want to try to enable the other as the main one, however, I don't know how to achieve that. I tried just plugging the monitor in that socket but it won't auto-detect it (it would have been way too easy to just work). This is my xorg.conf: Section "ServerLayout" Identifier "Layout0" Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0 InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard" InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer" Option "Xinerama" "0" EndSection Section "Files" EndSection Section "InputDevice" # generated from default Identifier "Mouse0" Driver "mouse" Option "Protocol" "auto" Option "Device" "/dev/psaux" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "no" Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5" EndSection Section "InputDevice" # generated from default Identifier "Keyboard0" Driver "kbd" EndSection Section "Monitor" # HorizSync source: builtin, VertRefresh source: builtin Identifier "Monitor0" VendorName "Unknown" ModelName "AOC" HorizSync 31.5 - 84.7 VertRefresh 60.0 - 78.0 ModeLine "1080p" 172.8 1920 2040 2248 2576 1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync Option "DPMS" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Device0" Driver "nvidia" VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation" BoardName "GeForce 9800 GT" EndSection Section "Screen" # Removed Option "metamodes" "1024x768 +0+0" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Device0" Monitor "Monitor0" DefaultDepth 24 Option "CustomEDID" "CRT-0:/home/charlesq/lg.bin" Option "TVStandard" "HD1080p" Option "TwinView" "0" Option "TwinViewXineramaInfoOrder" "CRT-0" Option "metamodes" "1080p +0+0" SubSection "Display" Depth 24 EndSubSection EndSection

    Read the article

  • Switching DVI socket

    - by lurscher
    I have Ubuntu 10.10 x86_64 with Nvidia 9800 gt and Nvidia driver version 270.41.06 My video card has two DVI sockets, but I only use the single monitor configuration. Now, I think the main DVI socket might be busted, so I want to try to enable the other as the main one, however, I don't know how to achieve that. I tried just plugging the monitor in that socket but it won't auto-detect it (it would have been way too easy to just work). This is my xorg.conf: Section "ServerLayout" Identifier "Layout0" Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0 InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard" InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer" Option "Xinerama" "0" EndSection Section "Files" EndSection Section "InputDevice" # generated from default Identifier "Mouse0" Driver "mouse" Option "Protocol" "auto" Option "Device" "/dev/psaux" Option "Emulate3Buttons" "no" Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5" EndSection Section "InputDevice" # generated from default Identifier "Keyboard0" Driver "kbd" EndSection Section "Monitor" # HorizSync source: builtin, VertRefresh source: builtin Identifier "Monitor0" VendorName "Unknown" ModelName "AOC" HorizSync 31.5 - 84.7 VertRefresh 60.0 - 78.0 ModeLine "1080p" 172.8 1920 2040 2248 2576 1080 1081 1084 1118 -hsync +vsync Option "DPMS" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Device0" Driver "nvidia" VendorName "NVIDIA Corporation" BoardName "GeForce 9800 GT" EndSection Section "Screen" # Removed Option "metamodes" "1024x768 +0+0" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Device0" Monitor "Monitor0" DefaultDepth 24 Option "CustomEDID" "CRT-0:/home/charlesq/lg.bin" Option "TVStandard" "HD1080p" Option "TwinView" "0" Option "TwinViewXineramaInfoOrder" "CRT-0" Option "metamodes" "1080p +0+0" SubSection "Display" Depth 24 EndSubSection EndSection

    Read the article

  • Detecting Available Qualities of YouTube Videos

    - by Langdon
    I'm writing a Boxee app that makes use of YouTube videos and I want to be able to display the highest quality version available. I was looking through the YouTube API, but I can't seem to find a way to detect if 720p and/or 1080p versions of the video are available. Does anyone know how to do this? I'm already using their Data API to collection information about the video, but there doesn't seem to be anything in the payload about different qualities consumable on the web: http://gdata.youtube.com/feeds/api/videos/NWHfY_lvKIQ I could just hard code fmt=22 and let it default to a lesser quality version, but then I miss out on 1080p (fmt=387).

    Read the article

  • Awesome Serenity (Firefly) – My Little Pony Movie Trailer Mashup [Video]

    - by Asian Angel
    Recently we featured an awesome Watchmen – My Little Pony mashup and today we are back with another great movie trailer mixer. This latest mashup video from BronyVids once again features the ever popular ponies and the movie trailer from the 2005 movie Serenity. Just for fun here is the original Serenity trailer that the video above is based on. My Little Serenity [via Geeks are Sexy] Serenity (2005) Trailer 1080p HD [YouTube] How To Encrypt Your Cloud-Based Drive with BoxcryptorHTG Explains: Photography with Film-Based CamerasHow to Clean Your Dirty Smartphone (Without Breaking Something)

    Read the article

  • Modern/Metro Internet Explorer: What were they thinking???

    - by Rick Strahl
    As I installed Windows 8.1 last week I decided that I really should take a closer look at Internet Explorer in the Modern/Metro environment again. Right away I ran into two issues that are real head scratchers to me.Modern Split Windows don't resize Viewport but Zoom OutThis one falls in the "WTF, really?" department: It looks like Modern Internet Explorer's Modern doesn't resize the browser window as every other browser (including IE 11 on the desktop) does, but rather tries to adjust the zoom to the width of the browser. This means that if you use the Modern IE browser and you split the display between IE and another application, IE will be zoomed out, with text becoming much, much smaller, rather than resizing the browser viewport and adjusting the pixel width as you would when a browser window is typically resized.Here's what I'm talking about in a couple of pictures. First here's the full screen Internet Explorer version (this shot is resized down since it's full screen at 1080p, click to see the full image):This brings up the first issue which is: On the desktop who wants to browse a site full screen? Most sites aren't fully optimized for 1080p widescreen experience and frankly most content that wide just looks weird. Even in typical 10" resolutions of 1280 width it's weird to look at things this way. At least this issue can be worked around with @media queries and either constraining the view, or adding additional content to make use of the extra space. Still running a desktop browser full screen is not optimal on a desktop machine - ever.Regardless, this view, while oversized, is what I expect: Everything is rendered in the right ratios, with font-size and the responsive design styling properly respected.But now look what happens when you split the desktop windows and show half desktop and have modern IE (this screen shot is not resized but cropped - this is actual size content as you can see in the cropped Twitter window on the right half of the screen):What's happening here is that IE is zooming out of the content to make it fit into the smaller width, shrinking the content rather than resizing the viewport's pixel width. In effect it looks like the pixel width stays at 1080px and the viewport expands out height-wise in response resulting in some crazy long portrait view.There goes responsive design - out the window literally. If you've built your site using @media queries and fixed viewport sizes, Internet Explorer completely screws you in this split view. On my 1080p monitor, the site shown at a little under half width becomes completely unreadable as the fonts are too small and break up. As you go into split view and you resize the window handle the content of the browser gets smaller and smaller (and effectively longer and longer on the bottom) effectively throwing off any responsive layout to the point of un-readability even on a big display, let alone a small tablet screen.What could POSSIBLY be the benefit of this screwed up behavior? I checked around a bit trying different pages in this shrunk down view. Other than the Microsoft home page, every page I went to was nearly unreadable at a quarter width. The only page I found that worked 'normally' was the Microsoft home page which undoubtedly is optimized just for Internet Explorer specifically.Bottom Address Bar opaquely overlays ContentAnother problematic feature for me is the browser address bar on the bottom. Modern IE shows the status bar opaquely on the bottom, overlaying the content area of the Web Page - until you click on the page. Until you do though, the address bar overlays the bottom content solidly. And not just a little bit but by good sizable chunk.In the application from the screen shot above I have an application toolbar on the bottom and the IE Address bar completely hides that bottom toolbar when the page is first loaded, until the user clicks into the content at which point the address bar shrinks down to a fat border style bar with a … on it. Toolbars on the bottom are pretty common these days, especially for mobile optimized applications, so I'd say this is a common use case. But even if you don't have toolbars on the bottom maybe there's other fixed content on the bottom of the page that is vital to display. While other browsers often also show address bars and then later hide them, these other browsers tend to resize the viewport when the address bar status changes, so the content can respond to the size change. Not so with Modern IE. The address bar overlays content and stays visible until content is clicked. No resize notification or viewport height change is sent to the browser.So basically Internet Explorer is telling me: "Our toolbar is more important than your content!" - AND gives me no chance to re-act to that behavior. The result on this page/application is that the user sees no actionable operations until he or she clicks into the content area, which is terrible from a UI perspective as the user has no idea what options are available on initial load.It's doubly confounding in that IE is running in full screen mode and has an the entire height of the screen at its disposal - there's plenty of real estate available to not require this sort of hiding of content in the first place. Heck, even Windows Phone with its more constrained size doesn't hide content - in fact the address bar on Windows Phone 8 is always visible.What were they thinking?Every time I use anything in the Modern Metro interface in Windows 8/8.1 I get angry.  I can pretty much ignore Metro/Modern for my everyday usage, but unfortunately with Internet Explorer in the modern shell I have to live with, because there will be users using it to access my sites. I think it's inexcusable by Microsoft to build such a crappy shell around the browser that impacts the actual usability of Web content. In both of the cases above I can only scratch my head at what could have possibly motivated anybody designing the UI for the browser to make these screwed up choices, that manipulate the content in a totally unmaintainable way.© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2013Posted in Windows  HTML5   Tweet !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs"); (function() { var po = document.createElement('script'); po.type = 'text/javascript'; po.async = true; po.src = 'https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0]; s.parentNode.insertBefore(po, s); })();

    Read the article

  • Should I partition a 1TB Hard Disk whose primary use is media storage?

    - by Senthil
    I am going to get a 1TB hard disk. I will be storing 1080p or 720p movies, high-bitrate music and pictures in it. I use my PC 90% of the time only to play/listen/see those. I am running out of space in my current HD so I am getting another one. My specs are 2.7GHz Dual Core, 512MB GeForce 9400GT, 2GB DDR2 RAM and all the proper matroska codecs/players. I guess that is enough to play 1080p movies withough a glitch, given an ideal hard disk. I've read about proper partitioning giving performance improvement etc.. I don't want my hard disk to be the bottleneck. Can someone tell me whether I should partition my 1TB hard disk into many drives? If I should, what is the ideal size of each partition? Smooth playing of movies is very important to me. Once I start filling up the disk, there is no turning back. So I want to get it right before I start. Thanks.

    Read the article

  • What Media Extender / Centre Set up should I use?

    - by Bryn Hird
    I have installed cat6 throughout the house which I use for telephony and network. In my cellar I have a NAS Server, gigabit switch and I want to install a Media Centre to stream my video's, music, photo's and live TV (coax from the aerial to the cellar) over the cat6. Yeah I know I can get stuff on the internet but shared experience of watching TV as a family as it happens is a big plus for live TV. I'm aiming for 1080p. I want different users to be able to watch different channels. Max users = 4. I've played a little with Windows Media Centre, works fine with live TV. Likewise I have XBMC up and running with live TV. The issue I have is what do I put near the TV. I'd like a consistent user interface (grandma and the the other technophobes in the house are continually pestering me on how to use different TVs, change channel, inputs etc.) so a key part of this for me is to make the user experience the same and simple i.e. no keyboards / PCs hanging around the TV. I've just bought a Linksys DMA 2200 to test the Windows Media Centre, but obviously off eBay as they're a dying breed. And with Windows Media Centre removed from Microsoft plans such devices will get rarer. And as for 1080p, think I can forget it with that set up. I have tested XBOX 360, also works but ditto on Microsoft plans for WMC. I was thinking of a WD Live TV to test the XMBC setup. Now to the question. Any advice on Media Centre / Extender setups that will do the job as above and have some degree of futureproofing (building my own with my Raspberry PI is a last resort). I'd like to understand the standards involved in the futureproofing if anyone knows (DNLA, RVU etc.).

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6  | Next Page >