The Monitor Inch Lie...

[Skybuck Flying]

Hello,

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in inches.
This is known as the diagonal line.

However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24 inch
height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.

Both of these foolish monitors would classify as 24 inch monitors since
their diagonal is close to 24 inch.

However it doesn's take a genius to understand that these monitors have even
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

Now that I feel awakened you by giving two foolish examples I will explain
further.

Think of a circle with a dot in the center, now connect a vertical line from
the center/dot to the top edge of the circle.

Now start turning this line around the edge of the circle, in a
counter-click wise fashion.

As the line turns around and starts to become more of a diagonal, the
rectangle which decribes the diagonal starts to become more square, and as
it becomes more square it's area increases.

It's only logical to assume that when it's a perfect square it's area is
maximized. So an angle of 45 degrees would give the maximum area.

I haven't even yet calculated if this is true but it seems like it.

This means the best possible 24 inch monitor one could buy is a monitor with
a diagonal slope of 45 degrees.

However this is not what monitor manufacturers sell. They do not sell square
monitors.

Instead they sell these weird wide inch monitors.

This is apperently a trick, to classify their monitors as one inch more than
a 23 inch monitor or multiple inches more as a 17 inch monitor which was
more square.

The reason/motivation/thinking/explanation behind this is ofcourse perfectly
clear: Rectangular monitors has less pixels, in this case because it has
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

Producing pixels is error prone... some pixels could be dead pixels, so this
brings down the chance of producing a monitor with a bad pixel.

This has now lead to monitors like 1920x1200 pixels where I do feel I am
somewhat constrained In the vertical space.

Some say it's because we see more in 180 degree field horizontal... which is
true in a sense.

But I could perfectly well handle a 2000x2000 monitor since the 2000 is
still within my viewing space.

Therefore I hope that 2000x2000 monitors will come into existence into the
future.

Since 1200 vertically kinda sux.

Fortunately for consumers the resolution is always specified so that at
least gives you some sense of what to expect.

Though be ware it becomes even stranger with 1920x1080 monitors ! Those
are even missing a few horizontal lines ! Worthless monitors in my oppinion.

Some may say this is to prevent black lines while watching movies ?!?!?!?
Can it get anymore retarded ?!? It probably could, but don't let it ! =D

I am glad with my 1200 monitor though.... 1080 would just suck even worse !
=D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

 

[Frederick Williams]

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[a7yvm109gf5d1]

Hello,

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in inches.
This is known as the diagonal line.

However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24 inch
height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.

No you idiot, the aspect ratio lets you calculate the dimensions,
assuming you can handle grade school mathematics.
In your case, that's optimistic. Just because you are a ****ing moron
don't assume everyone else is as stupid as you.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

wrote in message

Hello,

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in
inches.
This is known as the diagonal line.

However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24
inch
height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.

"
No you idiot, the aspect ratio lets you calculate the dimensions,
assuming you can handle grade school mathematics.
In your case, that's optimistic. Just because you are a ****ing moron
don't assume everyone else is as stupid as you.
"

Is there a point in your bullshit ? Except that you are an idiot yourself.

There is no ratio mentioned in my text, it's width versus height, that's not
a ratio, you can turn it into a ratio if you want but that is beside the
point.

The diagonal is the 24 inch which is always mentioned.

A diagonal is not a ratio is it now ?

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[Skybuck Flying]

Further more my 0.00001 inch by 24 inch monitor could still be a 1920x1200
pixels.

It says nothing about the pixel aspect ratio.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[a7yvm109gf5d1]

wrote in message




"
No you idiot, the aspect ratio lets you calculate the dimensions,
assuming you can handle grade school mathematics.
In your case, that's optimistic. Just because you are a ****ing moron
don't assume everyone else is as stupid as you.
"

Is there a point in your bullshit ? Except that you are an idiot yourself..

There is no ratio mentioned in my text, it's width versus height, that's not
a ratio, you can turn it into a ratio if you want but that is beside the
point.

You ****ing twit. It's mentionned when you shop for monitors. You DID
mention monitors in your subject?
4:3
16:9
16:10

You pick. Or are you claming 35mm film was one atom high? Something
tells me you will.

The diagonal is the 24 inch which is always mentioned.

A diagonal is not a ratio is it now ?

You turd for brains schmuck, you find out the aspect ratio BEFORE.
Idiot.

I wouldn't even let my cat use your skull as a litter box.

 

[John Tserkezis]

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in
inches. This is known as the diagonal line.

However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24
inch height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.

This is the aspect ratio, and is specified along with the diagonal
inches, and a whole bunch of other specifications.

Be wary of how it's measured though. CRTs are measured by the actual
glass tube, not the useful viewing area. So since you don't know how
much glass extends off the edge behind the plastic front, you need to
look at what others say to get *actual* accurate size.

Both of these foolish monitors would classify as 24 inch monitors since
their diagonal is close to 24 inch.
Yes.

However it doesn's take a genius to understand that these monitors have
even less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

Not necessarily, the size of a monitor, and how many pixels it can
show (apart from technical limitations) are ENTIRELY up to the
manufacturer.

Now that I feel awakened you by giving two foolish examples I will
explain further.

That's nice, but unfortunately, I've lost interest.

 

[GMAN]

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
Skybuck.

Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Flasherly]

Hello,

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in inches.
This is known as the diagonal line.

However I could sell you a monitor which has 0.00001 inch width and 24 inch
height or a monitor which is 24 inch width and 0.00001 inch height.

Both of these foolish monitors would classify as 24 inch monitors since
their diagonal is close to 24 inch.

However it doesn's take a genius to understand that these monitors have even
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

Saw an $800 Dell recently, under if not 27", that had an outrageous
resolution, surely over a couple thousand pixels across by a
proportional number vertically, so in keeping tangentially within
lesser accompanying numbers comprising videoboards and, overall,
industry standard aspect ratios. What you need to look further into
for focused relevance are native monitor resolutions - the pixel-to-
pixel capacity or "sweet spot," people aim for, when matching a
videocard's driver to their monitor (conveniently forgoing how
monitors differently treat 1090i/p modes while within entertainment
specifications, as well as, in their entirety, the ever encroaching
realism added to fantastic inner-worlds gaming depicts). For
instance, as I'm able to explain further, my dated ATI AGP boards
initially didn't support a native resolution for my already old LCD
panels;- it took aftermarket drivers to achieve what many budget
monitors natively support, 1368x768. May I suggest that's a good
enough number to begin with, although, as I couldn't as much care,
now, to as easily run at 1260x768, say, in a matter of speaking,
easily, comfortably, and forgoing a higher limit of compliance.
Considering my first monitor was 5" b&w television, I ran off a
computer through a RF modulator, you may unquestionably trust my
judgment when I say, personally, I wouldn't touch a 15" flat-panel now
even with a ten-foot barge pole I'd borrowed from you;. . .actually,
I'm only a foot or two from 32" TTL, an early, "affordable" Olevia
display, I've run 24/7 perhaps for something over 5 years.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"GMAN" wrote in message

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I
don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's
have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
Skybuck.

"
Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
"

Gjez gman, get some respect for the little things, even your small little
wheener ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

 

[Skybuck Flying]

The point I am making is very simple:

Just because somebody says: my monitor is 24 inch and yours is only 23 inch,
then it doesn't necessarily mean that his 24 inch monitor actually has more
pixels.

Nothing can be said just based on the inches measurement.

So it's basically useless to categorize monitors in groups based on inches.

You wan't to see an example ? Fine here you go:

http://www.alternate.nl/html/catego...e=2&bfbox=1&&tn=HARDWARE&l1=Monitoren&l2=LED&

Fortunately the website does also mention other things, like resolution and
such, otherwise it would be useless....

So it's on the brink of being useless ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

 

[Skybuck Flying]

Ok, at least you agree, just grouping monitors based on inches makes little
sense, an example:

http://www.alternate.nl/html/catego...e=2&bfbox=1&&tn=HARDWARE&l1=Monitoren&l2=LED&

^ That's a real world example and no bullshit.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

Also as the alternate.nl site shows.

The inch measurement is actually the main thing/scheme and not a little
thingy like you seem to think, again you do not understand reality.

It's probably related to americans measuring their dicks in inches and
believing more inches is bigger dick.

Well rest assured, in this thread I have already proven that more inches
diagonal doesn’t necessarily mean a bigger dick ! =D

That most feel somewhat reassuring for you !

www.alternate.nl

^ visit monitor section !

Bye,
Skybuck.

LOL.

 

[Norman Peelman]

Further more my 0.00001 inch by 24 inch monitor could still be a
1920x1200 pixels.

It says nothing about the pixel aspect ratio.

Bye,
Skybuck.

Of course it certainly could be, but when you see this monitor on
display in a store what would tempt you to buy it?

 

[Norman Peelman]

Ok, at least you agree, just grouping monitors based on inches makes
little sense, an example:

http://www.alternate.nl/html/catego...e=2&bfbox=1&&tn=HARDWARE&l1=Monitoren&l2=LED&


^ That's a real world example and no bullshit.

Bye,
Skybuck.

It matters most when you are looking for a monitor/tv that will fit
in a certain available space which has nothing to do with aspect ratios
or pixel counts (which don't mean much to the average consumer.)

But if you're interested in some good reading:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/howmanydots/
http://askville.amazon.com/highest-...arket-cost/AnswerViewer.do?requestId=33416234
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081114133755AAke5jR

Just beware that the odds of you being able to afford what you're
after are small.

 

[Fred Abse]

Monitor manufacturers like to publish the size of their monitors in inches.
This is known as the diagonal line.

This is a throwback to the days of circular CRTs with a rectangular mask.
The quoted figure was the diameter of the *outside* of the faceplate, not
the phosphor area. Since CRT makers had no control over the size of mask
their customers fitted, it made sense to specify CRTs this way. TV
manufacturers chose to adopt the convention that a TV with a 14" CRT was a
"14 inch TV".

It kinda stuck.

Early TVs had a 5x4 aspect ratio, despite the transmitted picture always
being 4x3. Later on, this changed.

 

[GMAN]

"GMAN" wrote in message

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I
don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's
have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
Skybuck.

"
Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
"

Gjez gman, get some respect for the little things, even your small little
wheener ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

You like looking at men?

 

[Rhaspun]

"Frederick Williams"  wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

Skybuck Flying wrote:

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.
[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing.  For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
 Skybuck.

Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a  person to go on and on and on
about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

No kidding. I look at the published screen size, at the physical
dimension and the specs. Must importantly I look at the monitor. If it
looks good then it's all good to go.

 

[Skybuck Flying]

"GMAN" wrote in message

"GMAN" wrote in message

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message

[...]
less pixels than a 15 inch monitor.

[...]
more vertical lines, and less horizontal lines, saving on pixels on the
horizontal lines, so the ultimately reason is: less pixels to produce.

"
Fewer.

ICL used to make a monitor which one could align in landscape mode or
portrait mode according to what one was doing. For example, editing a
page of a document was best done in portrait mode.
"

Rotating the monitor does not increase pixel count.

My HP L2335 can rotate and I never use it, I know some people do use
portrait mode.

I still would like to have a square monitor with 2000x2000 pixels so I
don't
have to choose between landscape or portrait and can always use my monitor
for any task

Simply put: some more vertical screen space would be nice, though I shall
admit horizontal space is more important for now, perhaps because gui's
have
adepted to 16:10/16:9.

Bye,
Skybuck.

"
Seriousely Skybuck, it is not normal for a person to go on and on and on
about shit that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.
"

Gjez gman, get some respect for the little things, even your small little
wheener ! =D

Bye,
Skybuck =D

"
You like looking at men?
"

You want me to look at you ? What's the matter, girls don't like looking at
your small little wheener ?

Bye,
Skybuck =D