Search Results

Search found 97 results on 4 pages for 'widescreen'.

Page 1/4 | 1 2 3 4  | Next Page >

  • Dual Screens with Widescreen monitors?

    - by nmuntz
    I want to build a new computer and purchase new monitor(s). At my old job I had two 20" 4:3 and I absolutely loved this setup. However, the stores in my country only seem to have widescreen monitors nowadays, and the only 4:3 LCDs i have been able to find are 17". My question is: Do widescreens suck for using them as dual monitors? Can anyone with this setup comment on their experience with having multiple widescreen monitors? Would it be better to get three 17" 4:3 LCDs instead of two widescreens? If i go with widescreens, should i go with the smallest ones i can find? Purchasing a single big widescreen monitor is not an option for me, since being able to maximize an app on a specific area of the screen is a must have for me and im not willing to use "hacky" apps for this purpose that do a crappy job. Thanks in advance for your advise.

    Read the article

  • Multi-monitor setup: one widescreen monitor, one regular (4:3) monitor; is this usually possible?

    - by stakx
    I'm trying to find out whether it's generally possible to have a multi-monitor setup with both a widescreen monitor and a regular monitor (ie. one with a 4:3 picture ratio). I'd like to run them in Extended Desktop mode on a Windows Vista machine. The computer is a Dell notebook with an onboard Intel GMA 4500MHD graphics chipset. While I know that this notebook is capable of driving multiple monitors, I don't know if it is also able to drive monitors with varying resolutions. Does anyone know if differing screen resolutions is generally a problem?

    Read the article

  • Matte or non-widescreen laptop? Do they exist?

    - by Alan Harris-Reid
    Does anyone know of any matte-screen laptops being sold now (15.6 or 17") in the UK? All I can find is the Dell Vostro 3500/3700 range, but there is a premium of around £200 over the price of their Inspiron range (for the 17" model), and I find it hard justifying the extra cost just to have a matte screen. I do not like glossy screens, but it seems the laptop industry has gone the way of "glossy is better - let's get rid of matte". I have read and heard from other developers that as long as there are no strong light sources to reflect off the screen, one can soon get used to a glossy screen, but I am yet to be convinced. I would also be interested if anyone knows of any non 16:9 screen laptops. I find this ratio too wide and not high-enough for the work I do. 16:10 or lower would be better. Any opinions would be appreciated. Alan

    Read the article

  • Why do people like widescreen when it is, de facto, less space?

    - by Kerry
    I find that many of my friends/non-programmers or designers like widescreens. It makes very little sense to me as you in fact have less space than a 4:3 (do the math). The closer to a perfect square the more space you actually have on your screen. I got a 21" 16:9 and two 19" 4:3 The 21" is nearly the same height, but I think its a tenth of an inch shorter if I'm correct. I forget the calculation but it is nearly the same actual space. I can understand if you're using your computer for constant movie-watching but I think that's more of people's "ideal" than a reality. Thoughts?

    Read the article

  • How to play games in widescreen in Windows 7, Dell Studio 1555

    - by blasteralfred
    I have a dell studio 1555 laptop with a GPU inside. The details are below; Hardware details Software details I can play games in widescreen in Vista, but not in 7. I am using Windows 7 Home Premium. I have the latest Catalyst Control Center. Instead of widescreen, the games are running in a classic style, say 1024x768 ratio. When I play need for speed underground, the maximum possible resolution is 1024x768 (all other games are like this). I have no problem with HD videos and anything else. How can I fix this? Thanks in advance...:)

    Read the article

  • XBMC DVB-T and Played Video filling screen

    - by Tubs
    I have a small PC running as an XBMC attached to a Samsung le37m87bd. The PC isn't powerful enough to output a full HD 1080 image at 1920x1080 which is the TVs native resolution (about every 1/2 a second things go extra fast, I assume skipping frames), so I want to reduce this. Annoyingly, the TV does not support any other widescreen resolutions. (720 etc) If I use a a 4:3 image, the TV stretches it to be the 16:9, however, all 16:9 content is stretched sideways as XBMC is sending out a 4:3 image with a 16:9 image inside. Is there anyway I can force XBMC to compensate for this, ie stretch vertically so that black bars are removed, but not stretched horizontally?

    Read the article

  • Where can I find a list of the highest resolution monitors for sale?

    - by speedmetal
    I am always on the lookout for the latest and greatest monitors, but for some reason, I have never found a good resource for this information. And while we know months in advance what new processor will be released, it doesn't seem like we ever know what new monitors will be released until they are. I am tempted to buy a Dell 3008WFP, but since the 30" 2560x1600 monitors have been out for 6 years, I would expect something better is about to be released. Where can I find out what is available in the high resolution / widescreen market and what is soon to be released? EDIT: I did finally find a resource for this information: Comprehensive List of IPS Based LCD Monitors However, if anyone finds another similar or possibly better resource, I will give it a correct answer mark. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Remote Desktop won't maximize

    - by vaccano
    I use a laptop and I am docking and undocking frequently. Often when I connect to another machine using remote desktop, the screen size gets messed up when I dock again. By "messed up" I mean that it stays the size of my lap top screen (wide screen ratio). Clicking maximize will not get it to go full screen. Any ideas how I can reset this (other than a reboot).

    Read the article

  • Is the recent trend toward widescreen (16:9) computer monitors a plus or minus for programmers?

    - by DanM
    It's almost gotten to the point where you can't buy a conventional (4:3) monitor anymore. Pretty much everything is widescreen. This is fine for watching movies or TV, but is it good or bad for programming? My initial thoughts on the issue are that widescreens are a net negative for programmers. Here are some of the disadvantages I see: Poor space utiliziation One disadvantage of widescreens you can't argue with is that they offer poor space utilization for the amount of total pixels you get. For example, my Thinkpad, which I bought just before the widescreen craze, has a 15" monitor with a native resolution of 1600 x 1200. The newer 15.4" Thinkpads run at most 1680 x 1050. So (if you do the math) you get fewer pixels in a wider (but not shorter) package. With desktop monitors, you pay a price in terms of desk space used. Two 1680 x 1050 monitors will simply take up more of your desk than two 1600 x 1200 monitors (assuming equal dot pitch). More scrolling If you compare a 1680 x 1050 monitor to a 1600 x 1200 monitor, you get 80 extra pixels of width but 150 fewer pixels of height. The height reduction means you lose approximately 11 lines of code. That's less you can see on the screen at one time and more scrolling you have to do. This harms productivity, maybe not dramatically, but insidiously. Less room for wide panels Widescreens also mean you lose space for wide but short panels common in programming environments. If you use Visual Studio, for example, your code window will be that much shorter when viewing the Find Results, Task List, or Error List (all of which I use frequently). This isn't to say the 80 pixels of extra width you get with widescreen would never be useful, but I tend to keep my lines of code short, so seeing more lines would be more valuable to me than seeing fewer, longer lines. What do you think? Do you agree/disagree? Are you now using one or more widescreen monitors for development? What resolution are you running on each? Do you ever miss the height of the traditional 4:3 monitor? Would you complain if your monitors were one inch narrower but two inches taller?

    Read the article

  • help with xorg.conf: xrandr on one of two widescreen monitors; rhel5, kde, ATI Radeon X1300

    - by user35997
    Can anyone help with me configure my dual-screen monitors for rotation? I have xrandr 1.1. Have tried various approaches, nothing takes. I can't even get the xrandr options to show up in KDE's Display control panel. Thanks1 My lspci output: 03:00.0 VGA compatible controller: ATI Technologies Inc RV516 [Radeon X1300/X1550 Series] My current xorg.conf (works, minus screen rotation): # Xorg configuration created by system-config-display Section "ServerLayout" Identifier "Multihead layout" Screen 0 "aticonfig-Screen[0]" 0 0 InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard" Option "Xinerama" "off" Option "Clone" "on" EndSection Section "Files" EndSection Section "Module" EndSection Section "InputDevice" Identifier "Keyboard0" Driver "kbd" Option "XkbModel" "pc105" Option "XkbLayout" "us" EndSection Section "Monitor" ### Comment all HorizSync and VertSync values to use DDC: Identifier "Monitor1" VendorName "Monitor Vendor" ModelName "Dell 2407WFP (Digital)" HorizSync 30.0 - 83.0 VertRefresh 56.0 - 76.0 Option "dpms" EndSection Section "Monitor" Identifier "aticonfig-Monitor[0]" Option "VendorName" "ATI Proprietary Driver" Option "ModelName" "Generic Autodetecting Monitor" Option "DPMS" "true" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard0" Driver "vesa" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "Videocard1" Driver "vesa" VendorName "Videocard Vendor" BoardName "ATI Technologies Inc RV516 [Radeon X1300/X1550 Series]" BusID "PCI:3:0:0" EndSection Section "Device" Identifier "aticonfig-Device[0]" Driver "fglrx" Option "DesktopSetup" "horizontal" EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen0" Device "Videocard0" DefaultDepth 16 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 EndSubSection SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 16 EndSubSection EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "Screen1" Device "Videocard1" Monitor "Monitor1" DefaultDepth 16 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 16 Modes "1920x1200" "1280x1024" "800x600" EndSubSection EndSection Section "Screen" Identifier "aticonfig-Screen[0]" Device "aticonfig-Device[0]" Monitor "aticonfig-Monitor[0]" DefaultDepth 24 SubSection "Display" Viewport 0 0 Depth 24 Modes "1920x1200" "1280x1024" "800x600" EndSubSection EndSection

    Read the article

  • How to vertically split widescreen into two virtual workspaces on ubuntu/gnome?

    - by David
    My new laptop has a big 16:9 screen, and I'm finding it hard to fully utilize it during the 95% of the time that I'm not watching HD movies on it. I'd like to set it up as a kind of virtual dual screen by splitting the physical screen into two workspaces. I know I could arrange my windows manually, but I'd like to be able to maximize a window and have it only consume half the monitor, and have its pop up dialogs centered on its half-screen, that sort of thing. Is there some kind of plug in available to do this? Thanks in advance for any pointers.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to split a widescreen monitor in to two or more virtual monitors?

    - by Mike Thompson
    Like most developers I have grown to love dual monitors. I won't go into all the reasons for their goodness; just take it as a given. However, they are not perfect. You can never seem to line them up "just right". You always end up with the monitors at slight funny angles. And of course the bezel always gets in the way. And this is with identical monitors. The problem is much worse with different monitors -- VMWare's multi monitor feature won't even work with monitors of differnt resolutions. When you use multiple monnitors, one of them becomes your primary monitor of focus. Your focus may flip from one monitor to the other, but at any point in time you are usually focusing on only one monitor. There are exceptions to this (WinDiff, Excel), but this is generally the case. I suggest that having a single large monitor with all the benefits of multiple smaller monitors would be a better solution. Wide screen monitors are fantastic, but it is hard to use all the space efficiently. If you are writing code you are generally working on the left-hand side of the window. If you maximize an editor on a wide-screen monitor the right-hand side of the window will be a sea of white. Programs like WinSplit Revolution will help to organise your windows, but this is really just addressing the symptom, not the problem. Even with WinSplit Revolution, when you maximise a window it will take up the whole screen. You can't lock a window into a specific section of the screen. This is where virtual monitors comes in. What would be really nice is a video driver that sits on top of the existing driver, but allows a single monitor to be virtualised into multiple monitors. Control Panel would see your single physical monitor as two or more virtual monitors. The software could even support a virtual bezel to emphasise what is happening, or you could opt for seamless mode. Programs like WinSplit Revolution and UltraMon would still work. This virtual video driver would allow you to slice & dice your physical monitor into as many virtual monitors as you want. Does anybody know if such software exists? If not, are there any budding Windows display driver guru's out there willing to take up the challenge? I am not after the myriad of virtual desktop/window manager programs that are available. I get frustrated with these programs. They seem good at first but they usually have some strange behaviour and don't work well with other programs (such as WinSplit Revolution). I want the real thing!

    Read the article

  • Screen Aspect Ratio

    - by Bill Evjen
    Jeffrey Dean, Pixar Aspect Ratio is very important to home video. What is aspect ratio – the ratio from the height to the width 2.35:1 The image is 2.35 times wide as it is high Pixar uses this for half of our movies This is called a widescreen image When modified to fit your television screen They cut this to fit the box of your screen When a comparison is made huge chunks of picture is missing It is harder to find what is going on when these pieces are missing The whole is greater than the pieces themselves. If you are missing pieces – you are missing the movie The soul and the mood is in the film shots. Cutting it to fit a screen, you are losing 30% of the movie Why different aspect ratios? Film before the 1950s 1.33:1 Academy Standard There were all aspects of images though. There was no standard. Thomas Edison developed projecting images onto a wall/screen He didn’t patent it as he saw no value in it. Then 1.37:1 came about to add a strip of sound This is the same size as a 35mm film Around 1952 – TV comes along NTSC Television followed the Academy Standard (4x3) Once TV came out, movie theater attendance plummets So Film brought forth color to combat this. Also early 3D Also Widescreen was brought forth. Cinema-Scope Studios at the time made movies bigger and bigger There was a Napoleon movie that was actually 4x1 … really wide. 1.85:1 Academy Flat 2.35:1 Anamorphic Scope (aka Panavision/Cinemascope) Almost all movies are made in these two aspect ratios Pixar has done half in one and half in the other Why choose one over the other? Artist choice It is part of the story the director wants to tell Can we preserve the story outside of the theaters? TVs before 1998 – they were very square Now TVs are very wide Historical options Toy Story released as it was and people cut it in a way that wasn’t liked by the studio Pan and Scan is another option Cut and then scan left or right depending on where the action is Frame Height Pixar can go back and animate more picture to account for the bottom/top bars. You end up with more sky and more ground The characters seem to get lost in the picture You lose what the director original intended Re-staging For animated movies, you can move characters around – restage the scene. It is a new completely different version of the film This is the best possible option that Pixar came up with They have stopped doing this really as the demand as pretty much dropped off Why not 1.33 today? There has been an evolution of taste and demands. VHS is a linear item The focus is about portability and not about quality Most was pan and scan and the quality was so bad – but people didn’t notice DVD was introduced in 1996 You could have more content – two versions of the film You could have the widescreen version and the 1.33 version People realized that they are seeing more of the movie with the widescreen High Def Televisions (16x9 monitors) This was introduced in 2005 Blu-ray Disc was introduced in 2006 This is all widescreen You cannot find a square TV anymore TVs are roughly 1.85:1 aspect ratio There is a change in demand Users are used to black bars and are used to widescreen Users are educated now What’s next for in-flight entertainment? High Def IFE Personal Electronic Devices 3D inflight

    Read the article

  • The best LCD monitors for reading text?

    - by Xeoncross
    I have been using an 19" Acer AL1916A B for several years now. While possibly failing in other areas - the text was incredibly sharp. Which is very important for someone like me that spends all day writing code. My eyes are very finely tuned and I can see refresh rates and even the smallest pixel overflows from anti-aliasing. Unfortunately it finally died. I then tried a 19" widescreen Acer X193w+ and found that the text was much less sharp. I also tried a 19" widescreen Samsung 920nw and was also disappointed. (by the way, widescreen is a great invention for companies - the same price for less screen!). I am looking for a couple of options of LCD's that hands-down render text ultra sharp and clear. This isn't subjective - an LCD either has sharp text or it doesn't. Anyone with delicate eyes can see the difference and knows what I'm talking about. Please also bare in mind that you're vision can adjust to a given screen; rendering your judgment biased if you do not constantly use other monitors also. If you use windows with ClearType enabled please do not reply.

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to permanently arrange 2 displays under XP?

    - by rumtscho
    When I am home or on a business trip, or on a meeting, I use my laptop in the usual way. When I get to work, I put it on the docking station and boot it with the lid closed. The image appears on the two displays connected to the docking station. On the left, there is an old monitor connected over VGA, on the right, a big widescreen connected over DVI. Obviously, the videocard seems to think that the DVI is the primary output, and the VGA the secondary one. Thus Windows always displays the widescreen on the left and the old FSC monitor on the right. So when I want to move the mouse pointer from the (physically) left display to the (physically) right display, I have to move it from right to left, which is a usability nightmare. Of course, I can just drag one display over the other one in the display properties, and then everything is as it should be. The catch: Windows remembers this only as long as it has the two displays. Every time it runs on the laptop display, it forgets the setting. Physically switching the monitors isn't an option, for ergonomical reasons. I prefer to run the more important applications on the bigger screen with the better colourspace, and the shape of my desk forces me to sit off-center, so the more important applications should be shown on the right display. Just switching the video ports doesn't help either. When I connect the big monitor over VGA, image quality deteriorates visibly. So what I do now is: every time I bring the laptop to my desk, I boot it. I wait the whole 7 minutes of XP booting, syncing network drives, etc. Then I fire up the display properties, switch to the last tab, drag the widescreen display to the right, and close. Only then can I start working. Does someone have a better idea? The laptop is a Dell Latitude 630 with Windows XP SP 3. It has an nVidia graphics card (not an onboard chip).

    Read the article

  • Making a 2D game with responsive resolution

    - by alexandervrs
    I am making a 2D game, however I wish for it to be resolution agnostic. My target resolution i.e. where things look as intended is 1600 x 900. My ideas are: Make the HUD stay fixed to the sides no matter what resolution, use different size for HUD graphics under a certain resolution and another under a certain large one. Use large HD PNG sprites/backgrounds which are a power of 2, so they scale nicely. No vectors. Use the player's native resolution. Scale the game area (not the HUD) to fit (resulting zooming in some and cropping the game area sides if necessary for widescreen, no stretch), but always fill the screen. Have a min and max resolution limit for small and very large displays where you will just change the resolution(?) or scale up/down to fit. What I am a bit confused though is what math formula I would use to scale the game area correctly based on the resolution no matter the aspect ratio, fully fit in a square screen and with some clip to the sides for widescreen. Pseudocode would help as well. :)

    Read the article

  • Making a game with responsive resolution

    - by alexandervrs
    I am making a game, however I wish for it to be resolution agnostic. My target resolution i.e. where things look as intended is 1600 x 900. My ideas are: Make the HUD stay fixed to the sides no matter what resolution, use different size for HUD graphics under a certain resolution and another under a certain large one. Use large HD sprites/backgrounds which are a power of 2, so they scale nicely. Use the player's native resolution. Scale the game area (not the HUD) to fit (resulting zooming in some and cropping the game area sides if necessary for widescreen, no stretch), but always fill the screen. Have a min and max resolution limit for small and very large displays where you will just change the resolution(?) or scale up/down to fit. What I am a bit confused though is what math formula I would use to scale the game area correctly based on the resolution no matter the aspect ratio, fully fit in a square screen and with some clip to the sides for widescreen. Pseudocode would help as well. :)

    Read the article

  • Move unity launcher to bottom of the screen

    - by argvar
    I have Ubuntu 13.04 DESKTOP version and for some odd reason I'm told that the Unity launcher cannot be moved to the bottom of the screen because of several reasons: 1. Canonical wants it there so it fits with their overall design goals, namely when it comes to touchscreen devices and netbooks. This in my mind totally ignores the fact that most Ubuntu users are DESKTOP users. No matter what Canonicals long term goal is, it surely mustn't be at the expense of needs of their core user base. 2. Most monitors are widescreen, the launcher is more compact where it is. This is not only taking away the users choice, but is also a wrong assessment. Widescreen monitors can sometimes be rotated on a pivot, giving it a portrait aspect. By displaying the Unity launcher on the left side it takes up a lot of space. Many desktop users have multiple monitors, and having the launcher on the left side of each monitor is very awkward. Also, many websites are catered to fit on a half 1920 display, so you can have two browser windows open side-by-side with all content visible. The placement of the Unity launcher takes away the horizontal space meaning there's less room for each browser window, and you'll see the right side of the web pages being occluded. Any suggestion to simply hide the Unity launcher, or "Canonical knows best" or "get used to it" are unwelcome and totally ignores the above points. Linux is about choice. Canonical's stubbornness with the Unity launcher placement is inconsistent with what Linux is about.

    Read the article

  • Surface and the Uphill Battle to Win Over iPad Users (Namely: Me)

    - by D'Arcy Lussier
    I went away this past weekend and decided to bring along the Windows 8 tablet from the Build conference last year – y’know, to give Windows 8 a try in a typical scenario. I also brought our iPad 2 along since I figured my wife would want to use that. I’d love to tell you how I found using my Windows 8 tablet but I can’t – I used the iPad exclusively the entire weekend. It was during this that I realized what Microsoft needs to do to win me over as an iPad user. As you’ll see, I’m left wondering what it is that Surface is meant to compete with: iPad and other tablets, or thin laptops like the MacBook Air or Ultrabooks. Device Size I really like the size of the iPad compared with the Build tablet. It’s not as long and the thinness/weight of the device makes it feel more like you’re holding a magazine than a computer. I’m pleased that Microsoft will be matching the thinness of the iPad with Surface, but I’m suspect as to what that actually means. The iPad’s edges slant inwards where the Surface has a thicker boxish look (similar to the iPhone 4S). So while they may have the same depth at the deepest part of both devices, I bet the iPad will come off feeling thinner. However, its not lost on me the number of external port options the Surface’s design provides over the iPad (Usb, etc.). With that said, I haven’t missed having a USB slot on my iPad. I’m not a fan of lengthening the Surface screen size to almost a full inch over the iPad, mainly because… Vertical Orientation Experience Did you notice at the announce event, in the images of the devices that have been released, and in any marketing for it, that the surface is always displayed in horizontal orientation. This is a huge beef I have with my Build tablet and why I prefer the iPad. Yes the iPad can do the wide-screenish mode, but the iPad is oriented to be vertical by nature. Don’t agree? Look at the button and camera placement – both on the shorter sides of the device. Compare that with the Surface, where the orientation for the button and camera is on the longer sides. To be fair, Blackberry and the horde of Android tablets out there haven’t gotten this either – since most monitors are widescreen nowadays tablets should be too right? Wrong. Widescreen is great for certain things, but tasks such as reading is not one of them – hence why monitor companies like Dell provide stands that allow you to flip your widescreen monitor to a vertical orientation. That Microsoft has chosen a horizontal orientation by default for Windows 8 is disappointing – hopefully hardware manufacturers will be given the option of a default vertical orientation. Fast Startup Time I like that I can turn off/turn on the iPad very quickly. Even from a true “off” mode and not just sleeping, the iPad boots up very quickly. Windows RT needs to have that same quick response. If I start finding that I’m waiting for the device to boot up for more than 30 seconds that could be a show stopper. No Heat I really hate that the Build tablet has fans that kick in to cool the procs, but its basically a slate computer and I get its part of that prototype build. For Surface, it needs to be the same type of experience as the iPad – no heat! I know Surface doesn’t have fans and uses some cool new vent system or something like that, but even then – I want to sit and read a book on my Surface without having to feel any heat coming from the device, which is the experience I have with the iPad now. What About Apps?! I am definitely not the target client when it comes to app stores. On my iPad I use: Safari Kindle Reader Twitter App Settlers of Catan TSN’s App And that’s it. So really, while its nice that some version of Office might be available, I’m not planning on utilizing a Surface for creating a PowerPoint or working on a Word document – that’s what my laptop is for. I want my tablet to be for information snacking or as an e-reader and occasionally an entertainment device. Surface vs iPad or Surface vs Air? The more that I read up on Surface, the more I wonder if it won’t be a touch-enabled MacBook Air competitor more than an iPad one. Also, I really question if Microsoft gets tablets – when one of your main selling features is a built-in physical keyboard it speaks more to a traditional laptop experience than a tablet one that’s entirely reliant on touch. Still, I really love the Windows Phone interface – way more than iOS – so I’m still very optimistic that the Metro experience on the tablet will be fantastic. I just worry that Microsoft has interpreted a tablet as a computer with a removable keyboard and a touch screen, and that’s not what tablet computing is about at all.

    Read the article

  • Which display manager for a non interactive Python app and mplayer?

    - by Matt
    I am developing an application that will run on Linux to run fullscreen all the time (no menus or trays or anything will be visible). The application is going to be developed in Python, not that that matters as far as the display manager, but what I am having a hard time with is choosing a display manager. I need something with the smallest possible footprint, that will let me run a graphical Python app and have an mplayer window at the same time, at widescreen resolutions (widescreen, 16:10,16:9, etc). Other than that, it doesn't need a lot of features, but the end footprint size is the most important thing I'll be looking at. What display manager would you recommend?

    Read the article

  • eMachines EZ1601 Review

    With a slim and stylish all-in-one design and an 18.5-inch widescreen monitor, Acer's brand-new desktop looks like it should cost more than $400. We put the elegant little nettop to the test and wind up just one DIMM short of falling in love.

    Read the article

  • Why does ubuntu 11.10 freeze when playing video?

    - by psylockeer
    I run ubuntu 11.10 on i5 CPU with 4GB RAM nvdia geforce GTS 250 connected to widescreen tv (HDMI) When using vlc, xbmc or boxee to play movies the system randomly freeze, the audio is looping the last words of the video file and nothing is responding. So I have to manually reset the system. Can anybody help? P.S. I forgot to mention the the log file was full of line regarding xbox 360 wireless receiver (I dual boot with windwos 7) so I unplugged it to see if that counts

    Read the article

  • Monitor Review: ViewSonic VX2739wm

    If the idea of getting a spacious 27-inch HD monitor for $349 doesn't get your attention, how about one with a 1-millisecond response time? We check out ViewSonic's Blu-ray- and game-worthy widescreen.

    Read the article

1 2 3 4  | Next Page >