|
Actually, no it's in front where it is supposed to be.
This wanders off my original chuckle, but the car comes with Roadside Assist. I was pleasantly impressed with the speed at which they got out there. Turns out, one of the cells of the battery had died (less than 1000 miles and 3 months old). So, dealer replaced the battery and made a specific notation that what killed it was the dash cam that was plugged in. I call bull chips on that, but that's another story.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
Greg Utas wrote: its battery was in the trunk
My '06 Dodge Charger's battery is in the trunk. I believe today's are still there.
I suppose one of the main benefits is that even today, it remains as clean and corrosion-free as the day I bought it.
|
|
|
|
|
User interfaces in cars are the worst. My dad worked for over 40 years as a mechanic - I keep telling him computers aren't as complicated as today's car consoles.
This stuff needs to be standardized.
But, a module placed at the back of a car, that makes an audible beep, is a different type of bad interface decision altogether.
|
|
|
|
|
Be aware an alternator can destroy a battery - this happened to me 3 months after replacing the battery (2016 CX5) total cost $1200 AUD.
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity -
RAH
I'm old. I know stuff - JSOP
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, smartphones and their offerings have made a whole generation (maybe two) stupider, so it's almost certain that they won't fare much better with a text-generating robot.
"One man's wage rise is another man's price increase." - Harold Wilson
"Fireproof doesn't mean the fire will never come. It means when the fire comes that you will be able to withstand it." - Michael Simmons
"You can easily judge the character of a man by how he treats those who can do nothing for him." - James D. Miles
|
|
|
|
|
As is the norm, SO already deleted the page at the link you provided.
That's good ole SO for you.
This is what I see[^].
|
|
|
|
|
and me
In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught. In a world of thieves, the only final sin is stupidity. - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, they have a fairly strict rule about non-questions.
|
|
|
|
|
At least for me that link goes to a page that says the author deleted it.
|
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
Ready to pull the trigger and get a 5k2k 40" monitor.
Now I own two 24" QHD monitors which have the text slightly small, that would be 2560x1440@60hz with 122.38ppi.
Currently what can be seen in my monitors at 100% and at 125%: https://www.imghippo.com/i/VBMaG1719656408.png[^]
The monitor I am about to buy gives 5120x2150@120Hz with 138.92ppi.
If I scale it to 125% (windows UI scaling)... would it become 4096x1720@120Hz with 111.06ppi? <-- that's wrong, of course pixel density won't change. But font size at 125% here should be a little bit bigger than the font I have now in my current 24" QHD monitors right?
Thank you very much in advance!
modified 15hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
Pixels are the smallest unit of a display. I don't think the ppi changes when you change your screen resolution.
It's just that more of the pixels will be used to display any particular thing on a lower resolution.
|
|
|
|
|
GKP1992 wrote: It's just that more of the pixels will be used to display any particular thing on a lower resolution.
I always point this out when someone buys a 4K monitor, but then the text is so small they rescale to 200%. At 200%, you end up viewing the same amount of stuff as any 1080p display, only, you're using twice the pixels on each axis to render it. Fonts might look sharper, but that's lost on people who don't have the eyesight for it.
|
|
|
|
|
dandy72 wrote: but that's lost on people who don't have the eyesight for it.
:raises hand:
"the debugger doesn't tell me anything because this code compiles just fine" - random QA comment
"Facebook is where you tell lies to your friends. Twitter is where you tell the truth to strangers." - chriselst
"I don't drink any more... then again, I don't drink any less." - Mike Mullikins uncle
|
|
|
|
|
Note that even visually handicapped people benefit (sometimes a lot) from text/figures being sharp. It of course depends on the medical reasons for your handicap, but for some, blurring text over 1.5 pixels actually makes text more difficult to read than 33% smaller with 1:1 pixels.
Also, some of the magic done with vector/outline fonts such as TrueType to make the text look pleasant to people with normal vision (typically using grey pixels along some edges, where the 'algorithmic edge' cuts right through a pixel), can, for some visually handicapped people reduce the sharpness that their character recognition depends on. I have worked with people who loved the old pixel fonts (pre TT), because they were so much sharper!
So if you let your screen driver or screen itself scale your fonts (as opposed to doing the scaling at the TT level) to make them readable to those with reduced eysight, at least make sure to do it by integer factors (2x, 3x, ...).
I am not visually handicapped myself (but close relatives are). When I boot up my PC, the BIOS/UEFI displays a line at the bottom of the screen about how to activate the setup. I believe it uses a 7 by 5 bit matrix per character. My screen is 2560 by 1600 pixels, so it is small.. Yet I can read it from a distance of at least a meter. I have tested out various TT fonts at the same physical size: None come close to the readability of the pixel mapped matrix font used at boot up!
Religious freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make five.
|
|
|
|
|
My question was meant to say something related to this...
I now have x2 24" QHD monitors scaled at 100%.
The new 5K 40" monitor scaled at 125% should have the fonts a little bit bigger than my current setup at 100%...
|
|
|
|
|
I am amazed I have written that... ^^¡
Of course you are right, no pixel size change.
I meant the font size at 125% in the new display should be a little bit bigger than what I do have now at my QHD 24" displays...
Do you think that is right?
Thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Joan M wrote: Do you think that is right?
Well even after scaling the second monitor is like 4K which is just better.
Slightly more than 2 times. Just the new monitor suck a lot more juice.
|
|
|
|
|
A small point. When a zoom / scale operation is done, I've heard that it internally does some kind of interpolation - nearest neighbour, bilinear, bicubic, etc., which ensures that the image does not look blocky (to a certain level of zooming in). So, effectively, it can be construed as a 'change', 'increase' in screen resolution, isn't it? Am not sure how to quantify such an apparent change in resolution.
modified 24hrs ago.
|
|
|
|
|
What problem are you trying to solve?
Meanwhile, since I cannot find a way to message you directly, I have a CNC problem I'd like to ask you... email is cgilley@bravesw.com
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
I need to figure out the size of the text I will get at a 125% scaling with the new 40" 5120x2150@120Hz with 138.92ppi monitor compared to what I do have now at 100% in a 24" 2560x1440@60hz with 122.38ppi.
I've tried to search for websites that show you a picture with text at different scaling and resolutions but have not been able to find it.
I am afraid I am buying through professional means that does not allow returning the goods unless they show any kind of malfunction.
|
|
|
|
|
oh ok, my question was ambiguous, let me re-phrase.
Why do you need such a large monitor? 
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
To make lots of programs! 
Seriously, now I have 2 x 24" QHD monitors and it works well, excepting text is slightly too small.
I was thinking on getting two new monitors to replace mine, but after seeing the new ultrawides offer IMST (a hardware way to make the PC believe there are two monitors connected) and seeing lots of people were recommending ultrawides I thought of getting one as in the worst case I would have 2 separate monitors as I am used to.
Then I thought of getting one DQHD 49" monitor which is exactly the same than mounting two 27" QHD monitors side by side. And Ended thinking hte best would be the new 40" Dell U4025QW monitor that sports 5120×2160@120Hz in an ultrawide format 21:9 ratio.
|
|
|
|
|
okay, got it. You want more screen real-estate. I simply cannot live without 2 displays.
Charlie Gilley
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759
Has never been more appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
The scaling is tricky. I assume you mean windows scaling in the UI.
It doesn't really change the resolution when you do scaling. It mostly makes icons and text bigger.
On a 40" compared to 24" you're only going to be 4" shy of a 100% size increase. Your resolution is about 20% higher, so (sort of) 20% smaller.
So yeah I'd say a bit bigger... 60%-ish.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
