Actually... not to be a nit-picker, but... 1680x1050 is a 16:10 aspect ratio (which was pretty standard on widescreens a couple/few years ago)... but now the world has moved mostly to 16:9 (so that most all displays - TV and computer are the same, since widescreen TV's have pretty much always been 16:9). A typical 22" 16:9 resolution would be 1920x1080.
Also... for the record... 1280x1024 is actually one of those 5:4 aspect ratios mentioned earlier in the thread... but... and I've never actually measured (so I really don't know)... they MIGHT space the pixels differently in one direction than the other so that it will fit a 4:3 panel. Does anyone know if this is the case? I agree that I prefer the 4:3 (or 5:4) displays over the widescreens AT THE SAME PRICE POINT... but, if I can afford it... I'd rather have a 24" widescreen than a 19" 4:3/5:4. Those two monitors will be roughly the same screen height... but the widescreen has more real estate and slightly more vertical pixels. On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Russell Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > On May 6, 2011, at 4:11 PM, Russell Senior wrote: > > > For me, it is much less about aspect ratio or physical dimensions than > > it is about the number of pixels. The newer models are giving you > > *fewer* pixels (in particular, vertically) than they used to while > > they blather on with their marketing distractions. > > How do you figure? > > The typical 20" 4:3 monitor would have a native resolution of 1280x1024. > > Normally, you would replace that with a 22" 16:9 monitor. > > The typical 22" 16:9 monitor would have a native resolution of 1680x1050. > > All I want is something I can look at and not get a headache while doing > so. > > Russell Johnson > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > PLUG mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug > _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
