TUXEDO launch their smallest Linux gaming notebook with the Book XP14

Quoting: ageres

Quoting: damarrinI disagree, it’s much better than 16:9.

Better in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

Why so aggressive? No one is taking your precious 16:9 screens away. I prefer 16:10 and that is that.

Quoting: ageresBetter in what? In videogames you get either a truncated image, or black borders on top and bottom. All videos are 16:9 now, so black borders again. When just using an OS and applications, there isn't much significant difference between 16:9 and 16:10.

16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.

16:9 is simply too short for monitors. It only exists for TVs as a compromise between the 1.85 and 2.39 ratios that cinemas used, and the 4:3 that TVs used. Widescreen monitors started as 16:10 so that you wouldn't have to sacrifice crucial vertical pixels for relatively unimportant horizontal pixels going from a 4:3 monitor. Then manufacturers started reusing cheap TV panels in monitors, on the grounds that consumers were more interested in price than functionality.

Quoting: damarrinWhy so aggressive? No one is taking your precious 16:9 screens away. I prefer 16:10 and that is that.

Why do you think it's aggression? You said 16:10 is better than 16:9, I asked why and got no answer. I'm thinking about getting a new monitor and what resolution it should have, QHD, or fancy ultrawide, or something else.

Quoting: CatKiller16:10 is strictly bigger than 16:9. That's why it's written that way, rather than as 8:5. 1920×1200 has 120 more vertical pixels than 1920×1080; 2560×1600 has 160 more vertical pixels than 2560×1440; 3840×2400 has 240 more vertical pixels than 3840×2160.

It depends on a point of view. I consider it not to be bigger, but on the contrary, narrower. If counting pixels, yes, 1920×1200 is more than 1920×1080, but isn't ultrawide 2560×1080 even more than both and actually can be used for benefit like displaying three pages of a document in full size instead of two?
But the most widespread 16:10 resolution was 1680×1050, not 1920×1200. Less than FHD in both dimensions. When I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

Quoting: ageresWhen I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

:shrug: I went from 1600×1200 to 1920×1200 when LCDs had mostly-as-good colours and viewing angles as CRTs; early LCDs were terrible at both. Cheap LCDs still are.

Quoting: omer666

Quoting: 3zekiel

Quoting: omer666Quite disappointed to see all the Linux vendors still shipping Intel-powered laptops.

First, right now, there is no real supply for AMD see CPUs (see Tuxedo AMD laptops stocks). So it's Intel or nothing for now.
Second, Tiger lake is very cool, its graphics perf are real great (way better than AMD at least, and according to new AMD APUs spec, this will continue), and single core performance is good too. So why not sell both AMD and Intel ? If you need more parallel CPU power, AMD is better of course. But that is not the general case. Graphics is usually much more limiting for most "standard" workload like browsing or gaming. And Xe does allow you to game on an APU, which is insanely cool. On the opposite, if you need to do a lot of code compilation, hw simulation etc, then AMD is better. So, best is really to have the choice.
Third, Intel continues to be a massive contributor to Linux/Open Source so not biting the hand that feeds you might be a good idea.

I agree with you, what I meant is that almost all Linux laptops I see are on Intel CPUs, so there is almost no choice at the moment. Of course I'm still eyeing what Intel is doing, but at the moment I'd rather buy AMD.

Ah I misunderstood sorry, well the issue seems to be AMD not delivering to smaller manufacturer, those who ordered the Pulse (Tuxedo's AMD laptops) received a mail not long ago saying that AMD did not deliver anywhere near as much CPUs as what was promised to them ... Guess everyone has big stock issues, but is not a very correct behaviour from AMD. So I expect that's why you see mostly Intel still. Even in non Linux laptop, high end ones are still mostly Intel, probably for similar reasons. 7nm is crowded right now, so with their own fabs Intel does have an advantage here in term of supply, 10 nm "superfin" does perform well too.
But I agree, as far as work goes, AMD CPUs would also be better for me. Guess we have to wait. On personal, I will take Intel for light gaming, but I would prefer a magnesium chassis with a more prenium feel than this one... We're almost there Tuxedo, now, make an Infity book version of this laptop, without the graphics card, but with the same battery as 14" infinity book and Xe 25w TGP, and I'll pull the trigger.

Quoting: ageresIt depends on a point of view. I consider it not to be bigger, but on the contrary, narrower. If counting pixels, yes, 1920×1200 is more than 1920×1080, but isn't ultrawide 2560×1080 even more than both and actually can be used for benefit like displaying three pages of a document in full size instead of two?
But the most widespread 16:10 resolution was 1680×1050, not 1920×1200. Less than FHD in both dimensions. When I was about to buy my first desktop in 2009, I hardly could find a 16:9 FHD monitor. All shelves in stores were full of 1680×1050 only.

Well I remember the times when the choice was between 1280x800 and 1280x720. Those 80 pixels made quite a difference. Wouldn't surprise me if 1280x800 was the most widespread in total.

On a personal note, I remember replacing a 1680x1050 monitor with a 1920x1080 monitor. I could never get used to it and kept feeling the picture was too squeezed. My primary use-case is however also applications which support resolutions, such as browsers, text editors and games. The x1080 monitor is fine as a secondary one though.

Quoting: BingoWell I remember the times when the choice was between 1280x800 and 1280x720. Those 80 pixels made quite a difference. Wouldn't surprise me if 1280x800 was the most widespread in total.

I'm not sure if 1280×800 ever was widespread on desktop PCs. AFAIR, after 5:4 1280×1024 monitors (yet another stupid ratio), 1680×1050 appeared. There were laptops with 1280×800 resolution, and I had one. So, for myself display resolutions evolved as 4:3 → 16:10 → 16:9, thus I believe 16:10 is obsolete. I still don't understand how 80-120 pixels would make a dramatic difference that outweighs black bars or cut borders with 16:9 content. It's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.


Last edited by CatKiller on 13 December 2020 at 4:28 pm UTC

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: ageresIt's just a line of text or two, isn't it?

It's an extra 11% of vertical space.

The black bars that you're concerned about: it's exactly that much.

I personally love 3:2 even better than 16:10, but those are rare beasts overall, and the few that exist have quirks with Linux...

QuoteI wish 16:10 screens would come back. :-(

Why? It's the worst ratio ever. I'm glad that it died.

It's actually the best ratio for computer use. It is designed to have more space and all 16/10 have better dot pitch than 16/9 which mean nicer image. I can understand that you don't like this aspect ratio, but i think it's because you got used to 16/9 and because for intance you had a 16/10 19"screen, and you replaced it with a 24" 16/9 so it seems a lot more confortabkle, but the same 24 inch in 16/10 is even more confotable, the fact that you get heigh is perfet for any kind of work. Writing text or coding for instance is always set verticaly, even when you browse the web on 16/9 half of the screen is lost, whereas on 16/10 it looks less stupid. It is also better for the movie imo.

Have something very large like 16/9 is only good for car or sim game. Everytime i see a 16/9 i'm like it is not high enough ,and way too large, feeling too low. Especially on computer, because this ratio comes from TV and gaming on console. But on pc you are close to your computer, and it makes no sens to have a large screen, because you loose a lot of focus in fps, the larger it is the more effort you have to provide with your eyes and brain, and you eyes fatigue way quicker. Originaly computer for work were a square not a rectangle, and it was perfect outside of the fact they were very heavy and very big.

Back in the 90' you already had resolution similar or biger than 1440p on some basic 19" screen which make a dot pitch better than 4k on a 27".

By the way every screen manufacturer create new model of every 2 years or 3 years, of 16/10 because they are perfect for work. And most of the time they also have IPS panel which looks a lot better than so washed colors on classic TN panels.

I have done 16/10 19"==> 24" 16/9 and 24" 16/10, I will never come back to this non natural 16/9


Last edited by Jahimself on 13 December 2020 at 8:00 pm UTC