The Monitor Inch Lie...

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

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.

--
When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by
this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting

"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...

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.

On Nov 19, 11:29*am, "Skybuck Flying"
wrote:
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.

wrote in message
...

On Nov 19, 11:29 am, "Skybuck Flying"
wrote:
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 bull**** ? 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

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.

On Nov 19, 6:55*pm, "Skybuck Flying"
wrote:
wrote in ...

On Nov 19, 11:29 am, "Skybuck Flying"
wrote:

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 bull**** ? 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.

Skybuck Flying wrote:

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.
--
Variables won't; constants aren't.

In article me.nl, "Skybuck Flying" wrote:


"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...

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 **** that doesnt matter in the grand scheme of things.

"GMAN" wrote in message
...

In article me.nl,
"Skybuck Flying" wrote:


"Frederick Williams" wrote in message
...

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 **** 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