[PLUG] Runt monitors

[Fred James]

Keith Lofstrom wrote:
> Rant!
>
> There was a kvetch a few weeks ago about widescreen monitors.
> Today I went shopping for normal 4:3 aspect ratio monitors,
> and couldn't find any.  It seems that the so-called widescreen
> monitors have displaced nearly all the squarer monitors.
>
> There is something insideous happening, and the scary thing is
> that the customers are pulling from their end.
>
> Monitors are measured by the diagonal dimension.  a 4:3 20inch
> monitor is 16 inches wide and 12 inches high - more or less,
> usually less.  For those of us using web browsers and text
> editors and similar tools, we are usually looking at portrait
> format pages, taller than wide.  So an 8.5 x 11 image, displayed
> on a 21 inch monitor, only fills half the screen.  Panels and 
> status bars, running horizontally (and why the heck is that,
> anyway???), cut down the size of displayed pages even more.
>
> Now we have the abomination of "widescreen", or as I choose to
> call them, RUNT monitors.  The aspect ratios are approximately
> 16:9 .  Wider, oooo!  More pixels, more workspace, right?
>
> Wrong.  Monitors are still measured by the diagonal.  An honest
> 4:3 20 inch monitor has 16x12 or 192 square inches of pixels
> (less usually, because many "20 inch" screens are a little over
> 19.5 inches between the pixel corners).  The math is harder to
> do for 16:9 ratio, but an honest 20 inch diagonal 16:9 is 17.432
> inches wide ( 8.9% wider ) and 9.805 inches tall (18.3% shorter).
> The pixel area is 170.92 square inches, 11% smaller.  To get the
> same pixel area, you need a 6% larger diagonal - that is, a more
> expensive monitor.  
>
> To get 12 vertical inches (11 inch page plus panels and status
> bars), a 16:9 screen must be 21.3 inches wide, or 24.5 inch
> diagonal.  Oh well, get rid of a few books in the shelf, and 
> the picture of the family.  Since you are paying big bucks for
> a "25 inch" rather than a "20 inch" screen, you can't afford a
> family anyway.
>
> But then, an increasing number of people are using their computers
> as TVs or game platforms (the same as TV, but with repetitive
> stress injury and 3-5 times the wasted electricity).  We are all
> unemployed - who needs to do use computers for work any more?  So
> the fact that the new monitors are less useful for programming,
> writing, and other productive tasks is actually a bonus.  
>
> The manufacturers reduce cost.  The consumers reduce mental
> effort.  Only us dinosaurs who actually use our computers to
> create stuff are complaining.
>
> Fooey.  A pox on both their houses, to the seventh generation!
>
> Keith
>
> P.S.  Actually, I suppose the trick is to mount the monitor with
> the screen rotated 90 degrees, then use    Option "Rotate" "CW"
> in the X configuration.  Is there a list of video cards that
> support this option?  It is a little hard on most laptop users ...
>
>   
Keith Lofstrom
In every rant there is a silver lining?  My personal experience doesn't 
equate.  For whatever reason, I seem to get more vertical image on 16:9 
as opposed to on 4:3 (no to mention the horizontal).  That would be from 
subjective observations of ...
    XP Pro on 4:3 (ThinkPad)
    Vista on 16:9 (Gateway laptop)
    Madriva 2000 - 2009 on 4:3 and 16:9 (Gateway laptop and old Compaq 
desktop)
... purely empirical - nothing formal - although it might be proper to 
note that I am not a gamer, or do I indulge in TV or full screen video
Regards
Fred James

PS: I have never tried the rotated screen, though I have seen it - call 
me silly, but I was not impressed - seemed rather like reading a galley 
- awkward.  Your mileage may vary.