This is a blog-style rant/discussion about my thoughts on various technology-related topics. It's inspired by Richard Stallman's "what's bad about" pages on stallman.org.
The introduction of 16:9 displays for personal computers was a huge disaster for the industry. 16:9 is a video aspect ratio and has no place in computers, unless their primary purpose is to watch videos (media-oriented tablets prehaps?). Almost all productivity applications have vertical content: documents, websites, code etc., and benefit greatly from the reduced scrolling when using a taller screen.
Unfortunately it's very difficult to purchase non-16:9 screens today, both for laptops and monitors. The only options for taller monitors are basically 24" 1920x1200 16:10 panels (which are decent, but 1920 wide is not high res enough), 30" 2560x1600 16:10 panels (which are extremely expensive compared to 27" 2560x1440 displays) and the beautiful 28" 4500x3000 3:2 panel on the Surface Studio (which is attatched to a very mediocre and overpriced AIO computer). With that said though, this isn't that huge of a deal as at larger sizes (27"+) 16:9 isn't too bad.
The real problem is with laptops - the only options for taller laptops displays are Apple's MacBook line (except the Air 11") at 16:10 and for PC users Microsoft's Surface Line at 3:2 (and a few random Toughbooks and small ultraportables like the MateBook X). However the PC options are all high-priced and there are no options for a business-class laptop (ie. ThinkPad) with a non-16:9 display.
Also: Think my rant about this is bad? Check this out. Also, check out this post by Linus Torvalds from 2012. Another interesting note: The PowerBook G4 500 Ti from 2001 had a thin bezel 3:2 display.
Yes, finally. Especially with Thunderbolt and DisplayPort (HDMI is shit, see below) alternate mode, USB-C is finally a physical connector standard that can be the only port on most devices (thank you Apple for leading this charge). However, I have two major gripes with the implementation of USB-C on some devices;
1. Missing video out: I've come across so many lower-end laptops with USB-C but without DisplayPort alt-mode support. This prevents USB-C docking and also confuses users as it's almost expected that users can use USB-C to DisplayPort/HDMI adapters with any USB-C device. It also means that these cheaper laptops which usually don't have seperate DisplayPort ports won't have DisplayPort. Less of an issue (but still annoying) are phones that don't support DP alt-mode but have USB-C, especially flagship level ones. The only phones I know that support DP alt-mode over USB-C are the Samsung S8/Note8.
2. Missing USB-PD: This is the big one. There are so many laptops out there with USB-C that can't take a charge over USB-C (again preventing USB-C docking). There are also quite a few with half-assed implementations like the Dell XPS line - they support USB-PD but will not charge on anything but a 20V source, meaning that you can't use them with USB-PD power banks or lower powered chargers. Meanwhile the MacBook Pro and the Surface Book 2 will charge off 5/9/12/15/20V sources, which is the correct way to do USB-PD.
Phones are just as bad - there are so many phones out there that have USB-C ports but only support fast charging over the proprietry Qualcomm Quick Charge protocol, which is unacceptable. USB-PD is an open standard and should be used for fast charging on all phones. USB-PD also drives the adoption of USB-C power adapters (power bricks with USB-C female ports on them) and USB-C to C cables, which should become the new standard. The only phones I know that support USB-PD are the Pixels, Galaxy S8/Note8, Essential PH-1 and the LG V30. The Galaxies have the advantage of supporting both Qualcomm QC and USB-PD on the same port.
HDMI just needs to die (especially on computers), seriously. DisplayPort is a superior standard with support for adaptive refresh rates and daisy chaining (very useful especially on laptops with only one video output). DisplayPort is also adaptable to almost any other display standard out there, including HDMI and Dual-Link DVI, whereas HDMI cannot be adapted to DL-DVI or DisplayPort.
While it's acceptable to have HDMI on a device that already has a DisplayPort (or USB-C w/DP Alt mode) port for wider compatibility without adapters, if your device only has one video out then it should be DisplayPort, if not only for the fact that it can be adapted to anything else. The Mini DisplayPort standard is also much more common than mini/micro HDMI which means if you're size constrained then miniDP is the obvious choice (I've seen some laptops like ASUS ZenBooks which have microHDMI ports - WTF? Who uses those? If you're gonna require an adapter for everything anyway just use miniDP, where you're less likely to require an adapter).
Why have we come to think 1000:1 contrast ratios are acceptable on high end displays? CRTs and Plasma displays had much better contrast than most of the LCDs on the market today, yet people are somehow OK with this. Even on high end devices 1000:1 is still the standard for IPS panels (VA panels on TVs have better contrast), and it's only slowly getting better - the new MacBook Pro and Surface Book are pushing ~1700:1 but even that is still not good enough.
We also aren't seeing enough OLED displays in the notebook market - the only OLED notebooks I know of are the ThinkPad X1 Yoga and the latest gen Alienware 13 (on both of which the OLED screen doesn't come standard). Also both of these have 16:9 displays which are unacceptable.
While I could rant about keyboard mechanisms, I completely understand why mechanical keyswitches are not feasible in every application. With that said, bad keyboard layouts cannot be forgiven: I've seen way too many keyboards without forward delete, page up/down or home/end. While it's possible to type without these keys, the absense of them results in a severely degraded typing experience.
// TODO
// TODO
// TODO