Which invention is more stuped?

[FelixDeCat]

Stuped is a variant of stupid that is akin to being 'ultra-stupid'. In order for something to be 'stuped', it has to be really, really stupid.

The choices are:

1. 16:9 desktop displays are dumb because 8:5 is better for web browsing and productivity apps like Excel. It requires less vertical scrolling.

2. Cases with bottom mounted power supplies. Damn I hate those. All they do is suck in dust into your system and make a mess out of your cabling.

3. Your sumbmission.

 

[pandemonium]

3D technologies...again.

 

[gorcorps]

The term "stuped"

 

[ch33zw1z]

Your submission, no contest.

 

[z1ggy]

Sham-wows.

 

[CPA]

cats

 

[Chiropteran]

16:9 displays

Nope. It may not be optimal, but standardizing on a display ratio the overall cost of monitors has come down dramatically. I'd rather pay $200 for a 27" 16:9 than pay $300 for a 22" 5:4 display.

Bottom mounted power supplies

Who even cares? It's relevant for about three minutes while you build your computer, and then it sits under your desk for the next two years. Unless you a serious nut about working on your hardware it doesn't even matter.

Your submission

Wins by default. Sorry!

 

[techs]

Reality television. By a mile.

 

[darkewaffle]

...those are your only two ideas?

OP is most stuped.

 

[Anubis]

your posts are the most stupid

 

[Gibsons]

Yahoo's home page.

 

[dank69]

stuped is as stuped does

 

[Zeze]

I laugh at the notion that computers are used only for work.

16:9 is good because we spend majority of the time using PC for entertainment (vids, youtube, etc) than work.

 

[Anubis]

I laugh at the notion that computers are used only for work.

16:9 is good because we spend majority of the time using PC for entertainment (vids, youtube, etc) than work.

yea but 16x9 isnt better for any of that either

 

[Oil]

7 TRILLION people

 

[clamum]

Oh my fuck. I'd copy and paste my last post in Texashiker's thread here but I'm too lazy. In short: YOU=MORON

 

[rivan]

Reality television. By a mile.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

 

[BurnItDwn]

16:9 displays are fine as long as they provide adequate resolution ...
16:9 1920:1080 is a hell of a lot better than 1280x1024 at 4:3 ...

Bottom mounted power supplies are a bit of a pain to install, but, that's it.... otherwise they are fine.

 

[Ichinisan]

Bottom-mounted power supplies kick ass, by the way. I can group my cords together down there more easily.

 

[Ichinisan]

I laugh at the notion that computers are used only for work.

16:9 is good because we spend majority of the time using PC for entertainment (vids, youtube, etc) than work.

That's what 16:10 is better-suited for.

1920x1200: Best of both worlds.

Cheap display manufacturers want to use their TV panels in computer monitors, so 1920x1200 16:10 displays are disappearing...fast.

I use a 27.5" 16:10 1920x1200 display at home and another at work. I also gave one to my mother. They are awesome.

 

[Ichinisan]

16:9 displays are fine as long as they provide adequate resolution ...
16:9 1920:1080 is a hell of a lot better than 1280x1024 at 4:3 ...

Bottom mounted power supplies are a bit of a pain to install, but, that's it.... otherwise they are fine.

No, they are not. The aspect is simply not suited to browsing the web and other things we use our computers for. 16:10 was used for computer displays first, and should have stuck around forever.

We're losing 16:10 PC displays because manufacturers are trying to maximize profit and consumers are ignorant about it.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

7 TRILLION people

good one

 

[Chiropteran]

No, they are not. The aspect is simply not suited to browsing the web and other things we use our computers for. 16:10 was used for computer displays first, and should have stuck around forever.

We're losing 16:10 PC displays because manufacturers are trying to maximize profit and consumers are ignorant about it.

I disagree. IMO it's a million times more annoying if you have horizontal scroll bars on a web page than vertical. Pages are normally designed so you need to scroll up and down, but horizontal resolution is simply assumed to be there. Wider wide-screen is better for the web.

I mean, do you use your iphone in portrait mode to browse the web?

 

[Krazy4Real]

your submission by far.

 

[Anubis]

I disagree. IMO it's a million times more annoying if you have horizontal scroll bars on a web page than vertical. Pages are normally designed so you need to scroll up and down, but horizontal resolution is simply assumed to be there. Wider wide-screen is better for the web.

I mean, do you use your iphone in portrait mode to browse the web?

umm yes, actually most do


also 16:10 and 16:9 have the same amnt of Horiz pixels at the same resoloutions so Hroiz scrolling is a non issue and i have no idea what you are talking as there is no more H space on a 1920x1080 display vs a 1920x1200 one (unless running in portrait mode)