Re: Monitor dimensions

[snip]
I don't understand why you want to run Windows in 4x3... it
makes no sense to do so! Your pictures have nothing to do with
the screen size and shape of Windows...

This should be obvious, BF. Prior to the VERY recent times, ALL
graphics and text have been in a rather fat aspect ratio. In PC
terms, if one goes back to the earliest days of time-sharing CRT
terminals (not the TTY kind), the "bit map" that enabled the
standard 80 x 24 lines of text and the screen dimensions were
roughly 4:3. As graphics terminals came into existance, first on
high-end CAD systems and later during the early days of the IBM
PC XT with CGA, the graphics aspect ratio took its due from
standard TV, which had used it for decades. We are still there
today.

WRT to the purpose of this NG, let us go back in time to when
today's still-standard photographic prints were developed such as
5 x 7, 8 x 10, 11 x 14, and 16 x 20. These are ALL pretty fat
aspect ratios, even more than 4:3. It is only with the advent of
4 x 6 did we see slimmer ratios. As for me, I began collecting
pictures, primarily cars, around 1990 via scanning books and
magazines. Since the monitors of the day were 4:3, it made sense
to me to scan to that ratio. As time went on, I accumulated quite
a large library and its size zoomed once the digital camera
revolution became a reality. So, there IS a valid reason to at
least want to run 4:3 even if I have to put up with black bars.

On the non-photo side, web sites are still pretty much
standarized around 4:3, and are even still largely designed to
support relatively small Windows resolution such as 1024 x 768 or
even 800 x 600.

Those are my reasons. Would you mind telling me why you think
this idea is so repugnant to you?

( Running 4x3 on a 16x9 is a bit impossible!)

Well, I wouldn't leap to that conclusion right out of the gate. I
discovered some things last night that have restored at least
some faith that I haven't gone senile since I last looked at
large LCDs, but I have also looked at varying sizes of flat-
screen TVs, starting with the 26" Sony LCD I bought for my wife
18+ months ago which is wide-screen and supports HDTV. It is also
a PC monitor at the low resolution of 1024 x 768. I bought her
this monitor when we redecorated her office so that she should
lean back on her chair and watch TV or pop a wide-screen DVD into
the drive and watch a movie, which she cannot do on any of our
older 4:3 TVs without have a narrow display with top and bottom
black bars. Or, she could switch to PC mode with black on left
and right. She isn't into computer graphics except to look at
pictures her friends E-mail her or our daughter loads on her PC.
And, the black bars and low resolution don't bother her a bit.

If that makes either/both of us somehow unworthy to be alive as
the world is moving inexorably from the old to the news, then, I
guess we'll just have to live with it and muddle on as best we
can.

[snip]
Don't forget that the picture (and text) will also be messed
up by the re-scale function... The monitor has 1920x1200 pixel
areas, attempting to show 1600 in 1920 is impossible to do in
integer math, so there will be some pixels doubled up and some
singled. The distortion is not so readily visible on an old
style CRT because the beam 'paints' the screen, and can paint
half a pixel phosphor area if necessary. This is not true for
LCD since the entire cell must be on or off.

Even though I completely blew past exactly what the Samsung 244T
looks like physically, which is why I had such a frustrating time
yesterday understanding this aspect ratio confusion, 1920 x 1200
is the NATURAL resolution of the monitor, not necessily the only
resolution/aspect ratio it supports. I will learn enough to re-
start my search for a bigger monitor more intelligently after I
talk to Samsung later today to find out IF the 244T supports
other resolutions. I hesitatee to make predictions, but I have a
strong suspicion that it does. I don't know, but THINK it can
display smaller pixel sizes in its 16:10 wide-screen aspect ratio
and I'd bet it can work in other aspect ratios, probably
including 4:3 by one of two methods, incorrectly through
distorting the image or by putting up black bars. If my wife's
26" Sony can do that, why can't a Samsung?

Thank you for your input and valuable first-hand experience.
As to analog vs. digital, sorry but I strongly disagree. My
213T has both but if I connect the digital ALL of the monitor
controls are disabled and I cannot do anything to picture
placement,

You have a problem with your monitor. My monitor retains all
menu functions, maybe you have an Auto setting to turn off...
The first thing I did was turn down the brightness and
contrast! I have an HD wall paper up that looks 3-D!

Thank you for your observation. But, sitting where you are
doesn't allow you to make a value judgement like you did. All too
many people in the digital photo NGs and in PC support NGs
immediately leap to the conclusion that something is broken when
a user complains. So, while your 245T obviously has features that
you like and I say my 213T lacks, how did you conclude that my
monitor has a problem? Let me give you a hint that you're making
unfounded assumptions: when I push the various buttons on the
front of my monitor that adjust its behavior, ALL the things are
greyed out and I don't recall there being an "auto" setting. But,
since it has been a year since I tried it, I will allow for the
possibility that I missed it and I will certainly give you the
benefit of the doubt that it is there. That said, beauty is still
in the eyes of the beholder. And, if I think the display looks
like crap on digital - auto or not - compared to the factory
defaults for analog, then can you find it in your heart to give
me the benefit of the doubt?

brightness/contrast, color balance, nothing. That might be OK
if I liked what I saw, as it isn't my bag to try to out-smart
a monitor, but I thought my car pictures looked absolutely
awful with digital connected to my ATI Radeon card, and
quickly went back to analog.

Typically the digital signal will be better then the analog
due to the extreme high speeds in use on these big monitors.
Don't judge all monitors by yours!

I have only one data point, my own monitor. I have judged NO
other monitors for ANY performance related issues. I didn't just
fall off a turnip truck, I understand the benefits of digital
anything. But, please keep in mind that I am both a realist and a
pragmatist. I am not a theotician, a zealot, elitist, or anything
else that must have the very biggest and the very best or they
are unhappy. In the old WYSIWYG fashion, if /I/ don't like what I
see, I'd politely suggest that it doesn't matter what other
people think. Hell,you may think my photos look like crap for
other reasons! <grin>

I got my Samsung after seeing it displayed at Future Shop...
bought it on the spot!

After learning what I did yesterday, especially after what I
discovered to my shagrin late last night, I'm going to go out on
a quest to find a store that does carry high-end hardware. Right
this minute, though, I do not know of one. I have only 2 "real"
computer stores near me. The CompUSA is either closed (haven't
been there for awhile) or will close soon, they've announced
that. And, the other store has NO monitors larger than 17" except
for a couple of low-quality 21" wide-screens which obviously do
not fit my criteria.

--
HP, aka Jerry
.