61–70 of 94 posts
The Pixel's best feature is the touchscreen. The first time you tap a tiny onscreen link with your finger, instead of trying to aim for it with the trackpad, or the first time you pinch to zoom out on Google Maps, you'll never want to use a non-touchscreen laptop again.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really. The only thing not making it a 'great' device is the battery life ? You do realise that ALL it does is surf the web ? I don't understand why anybody would buy it over an iPad or a refurbished MacBook Pro. I personally think it is one of the most pointless devices released in the last few years.
It can boot Linux. In that regard, it has the potential to be a general purpose laptop. Although you have to keep your files in the "cloud" because it only has 32gb of storage.
Again. Why wouldn't you buy a MacBook Pro that is usable out of the box ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The reason wider screens are preferred is because of human's field of view. We see 180 degrees horizontally yet only 135 degrees vertically. So why on earth would you build a screen that requires people to expend more energy to use ?
While it is true that our eyes' horizontal field of view is close to 180 degrees, we can't really "see" that much at once, especially if we are talking about reading. Watching and reading are inherently different processes. While reading, you will actually be focused to a very limited area at once. You will constantly move your eyes as you keep reading the text, regardless of how wide the screen is. A longer line req…
But it sure beats having to move your head.
The Pixel's best feature is the touchscreen. The first time you tap a tiny onscreen link with your finger, instead of trying to aim for it with the trackpad, or the first time you pinch to zoom out on Google Maps, you'll never want to use a non-touchscreen laptop again.
The Pixel's best feature is the touchscreen. The first time you tap a tiny onscreen link with your finger, instead of trying to aim for it with the trackpad, or the first time you pinch to zoom out on Google Maps, you'll never want to use a non-touchscreen laptop again.
Unless Google has done a lot of work with WebKit then it is going to be a pretty awful experience. You only have to compare the native Google Maps with the web version to know that "touch" is poorly handled by browsers. It is an order of magnitude slower that apps which like it or not are the benchmark Google needs to compete against.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unless Google has done a lot of work with WebKit then it is going to be a pretty awful experience. You only have to compare the native Google Maps with the web version to know that "touch" is poorly handled by browsers. It is an order of magnitude slower that apps which like it or not are the benchmark Google needs to compete against.
Actually Google Maps in IE10 with touch screen pretty well and I am assuming Chrome will handle it well if not better...
So again. Unless Google has added something magical in recent builds of WebKit that hasn't yet made it to the iPad then it will equally be terrible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have a 13" Macbook Air with a reasonable 1440x900 resolution, and I can fit about 1 1/3 windows on screen, at best: a narrower-than-usual browser window and TweetBot. Laptop screens are generally not wide enough to fit two windows side by side. Even the ones that are, such as your 1080p 15" laptop, are unusable for most of us due to tiny text and so on.
My 15" MBP at 1400x900x2 is wide enough to fit a split editor, or an editor and part of a terminal (I find that having part of a background window visible makes it less jarring to switch to it). I wouldn't mind it being physically taller, but I wouldn't want it to be any narrower.
I stand by earlier post for, say, a web browser or email client.
It is a great machine crippled with 32gb hard drive.
Well, obviously it's marketed as a device that is supposed to have the lion share of its data in the cloud. In that regard, 32GB is plenty. I like to think of it as something that could make a pretty neat remote desktop workstation. I've actually thought about putting my main linux workstation on the LAN, somewhere else (it's a bit noisy) and logging into it from a thin client. The Chromebook Pixel does make a rather…
What truly separates Pixel from a $250 laptop is the retina, touchscreen display which is wasted if you are exclusively using it for VNC.
also 4 gb? not for me ;/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now extend the screen vertically until it becomes a 4:3 screen. Now you can fit two 80x30 emacs buffers side by side.
But then it's a bigger screen. To maintain the same screen size, you need to extend vertically while narrowing horizontally. Now you can't fit 2 80 column buffers side by side without reducing font size. A 16:10 screen can be treated as two side-by-side 8:10 windows, or basically the same ratio as a piece of letter-sized paper. A 4:3 screen is two side-by-side 2:3 windows, which is substantially narrower than paper s…
Once you hit that threshold, going taller is better. And if you're going to be below that threshold anyway, going taller is better, I think.
Of course, this changes from application to application -- when I used an IDE like Visual Studio, there was no hope of putting buffers side by side, and vertical space was all that mattered.
I don't tile web browser windows, either. I'm using a 12.5" 1280x800 screen right now, and it's maximized, with the Windows taskbar on the right side. Using half the screen would be kind of pointless (I'm not reading two documents at once) and I often would like to have a taller screen when web browsing.