I don't deny emulators are what are used more by most people, however, ALMOST EVERYBODY uses other things as well.
I don't 'realize that these look WORSE on a WS' because that is purely opinion. .. Widescreen isn't 'goofy', there are standards. You should 'realize' that hardly any consoles are 320x240 either, so your argument about no scaling is silly. I for example, often LIKE SCALED GRAPHICS!
And just to round off this post, you did in fact say that my X server was worthless and you do (less so now, I applaud you for your tremendous efforts) say that a particular emulator is a waste of time, and you always used to cite SNES transparencies as something that they should go and do instead.
In case you have forgotten, here is where you slagged off my work:
"Why go back? Just to get some stupid X server that only .01 % of the linux geeks will like?"
Yes we use other things too. But as I said, and you have a hard time with this, Each resolution has it's drawbacks. 320 x 240 better suits emus and ports, 480 x 272 is better for text worse for emus. If you play emus more than you look at text viewers (which most do) then it is better to have emus look better and text more limited, than it is to have emus look crappy and have a few more characters on screen.
No consoles aren't *exactly* 320 x 240 but they are close enough so if you leave a small border you still get a reasonable image size and sharp 1:1 pixel mapping. What is so silly about that? Scaling is OK if it is even like 2:1 but when you do this 1.5:1 fractional shit it leaves some pixels 1:1 and others doubled on the same screen making it look ugly. You say you actually like that? well if you say so but it seems very strange to prefer pixel distortion.
Widescreen itself isn't the goofy thing it is that stupid resolution that they chose for it. 480 x 272 is an in-between resolution that is close to nothing. It is too high for emus making the image much smaller(or stretched and pixellated) , and it is too low for VGA PC stuff (like OpenTTD for example) that is 640 x 480. 480 x 272 is just a stupid resolution that makes absolutley no sense and really has absolutely no advantage. If it was 800 x 480 WS that would make more sense.
"some stupid X server " is a figure of speech. It is not like saying "your x server sucks". I have never used it so why would I say it sucks? I am sure it works very well.
leathco posted on Mar 15 2007 at 06:13 PM said:
Sorry, it's just my opinion, but having a basic 4:3 ratio just wouldn't be forward thinking if they made the next generation GPx2 with that instead of widescreen. Why can't we have both the emulators and widescreen programs and movies?
Forward thinking? It makes no sense when you are mostly running 10-20 year old games (that were NOT widescreen) on it :rolleyes: It is like "well all my emus are stretched out and pixellated, they look like shit, but hey at least it is forward thinking" Giving up a quality image just to be "in style" is ridiculous.
You can have both but again emu images are smaller, quite a bit smaller. Why would you want something that much smaller than what we have now. To me that is the opposite of "forward" example:
LordFu posted on Mar 15 2007 at 08:57 PM said:
LoL, what craig said. I use widescreens on my PCs. On a handheld, it's less of a difference, but on a PC screen, widescreen=more usable space, IMO.
Actually a widescreen is a 4:3 screen with the top and bottom *cut off*. You get LESS space
(that is a joke really to prove a point. Aspect DOESN'T give more or less space. screen area and resolution do)
Actually it kind of doesn't matter as far as being more or less "cinematic" on a handheld. It is not like you are surrounded and immersed by a 4" screen no matter what it's shape

Then what is more important is to best match what you run most on it.
craigix posted on Mar 15 2007 at 08:50 PM said:
You're eyes are widescreen, that's why
Not really they are more of an "ellipse". I know you have your mind set on 480 x 272 but that is terrible for emulation-centric handhelds. The whole WS thing came from movie theaters (not eyesight) likely just because you could fit in more seats if the screen was wider. Then eventually when home video became popular TVs just matched it. When you think about it 4:3 is more modern than WS. TVs that used it came *after* movies that were WS way before TVs were even invented.