Re: Monitor dimensions

John Bean added these comments in the current discussion du jour
....

I'm not trying to apportion blame, John! However, it should
be clearer (at least in monitor instruction manuals) just
precisely how they support non-native resolutions. When a
1920 x 1200 monitor say it accepts a 1024 x 768 display, just
what should the user expect to see? The image with its aspect
ratio changed to fill the screen? The image resampled in the
hardware to 1600 x 1200 and displayed with black bands at left
and right? Or the image in its native size with black borders
at top and bottom and even bigger borders at left and right?
IIRC, my TV does the big border thing, but my computer
monitors rescale (e.g. when looking at BIOS output). Is there
a standard behaviour, to which all monitors conform?

Sadly not, and I agree entirely with what you say. But I
always recommend users of LCD panels to run them at native
resolution and adjust Windows desktop settings to make
things like menu and icon text appear the size they want. I
just can't see the point of buying an expensive hi-res panel
and using it in a way guaranteed to reduce image quality.

I understand your point as well as I understand why people cannot
comprehend anyone, likee me, that doesn't shoot RAW at the
highest mega pixel size their camera has. Let me try a car
analogy on you: I drive a 2007 Dodge Charger HEMI R/T, which is a
nice looking, pretty good performing car. If I had wanted to, I
could've saved many thousands of dollars on an almost identical
looking car, but not had the performance and handling. OTOH, I
could also have opted for an SRT8 425 hp car (mine is "only" 350)
for a $14K premium. I went in the middle for a number of reasons.
If I used the logic "I always recommend on the best", I would
automagically "sold" myself on a much more expensive car AND one
that isn't suited to a Michigan winter. So, I certainly
appreciate your perspectives on all this, as I do all those
trying to help me. I hope you may be able to at least somewhat
appreciate why I would want to run at a lower resolution with a
different aspect ratio, even knowing it is to a lesser or greater
degree optimum. That is called "freedom of choice" and we all
enjoy that freedom.

Thank you and have a great day!

--
HP, aka Jerry
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Retrieve NATIVE screen resolution
    ... I agree with you concerning high-res monitors, but I think i may have left ... compiled code so that i can deploy it on any hardware. ... regarding the native or optimum resolution for any given monitor.... ... api's from script is frowned upon by scripting professionals). ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.wsh)
  • Re: Retrieve NATIVE screen resolution
    ... Otherwise, if all else fails, google "Optimal Monitor Resolution". ... CRT type monitors don't have a native resolution. ... 'native' resolution is used by the display adapter. ... Other systems allow you to specify a range ...
    (microsoft.public.scripting.wsh)
  • Re: Whyre big corps doing 800px sites nowadays
    ... the last year most computers are being sold with 17" monitors. ... The higher 1024x768 resolution was possible of course but it ... configuration will also be compelled to stop relying on fixed table layouts ...
    (microsoft.public.frontpage.client)
  • Re: [OT]Addendum to "Notes from a European Traveller"
    ... Why did you set the table width of your pages at *1000* pixels? ... With my smaller screen and 800 x 600 resolution, ... on monster monitors and high resolutions) does that. ... and he complains if there are any pictures at all. ...
    (alt.usage.english)
  • Re: New powers for the Jobsworths?
    ... >Our phone calls, internet usage, credit details, shopping habits and soon car usage will ... be tracked to a particular area/cell, someone monitors our emails ... As for car useage monitoring, ... As I said you cant fart without someone knowing, ...
    (uk.railway)