Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


ZortMcGort11

every new computer interface SUCKS, sticking with winME

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, jaclaz said:

@Rloew

Quantum pixels? :dubbio:

jaclaz

You will have to specify the Qubit configuration and Initialization procedure for these pixels, along with a proof that they meet the requirements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, rloew said:

You will have to specify the Qubit configuration and Initialization procedure for these pixels, along with a proof that they meet the requirements.

I thought that as long as you don't look at them ;) quantum pixels would work just fine :lol:.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 28.12.2017 at 4:44 PM, jaclaz said:

The divergence is only in the intended meaning of "common" or "popular" (and - conversely - of "not-so-unpopular")

The 5:4 has never been IMHO "common", as it equates in practice to only  1280x1024.

The clue might be, that I've seen many 5:4 monitors (including the one still working with my XP machine), but I first stumbled upon 16:10 monitor in 2016. And believe me, if it happened earlier, I'd never bought 16:9 monitor, despite significant price difference.

On 28.12.2017 at 4:44 PM, jaclaz said:

Remember we are talking of LCD's native resolution, not resolutions available on video cards.

Never thought any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there is definitely some differences between your experience and the "mass market", 16:10 has been popular since 2003/4 and roughly till 2008/2009 and only later shifted to 16:9, in an "industry move" to unify with TV's:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:10

You will be happy that the wikipedia page mentions 5:4:

Quote

Industry moves towards 16:10 from 2003 to 2008

Until about 2003, most computer monitors had a 4:3 aspect ratio and some had 5:4. Between 2003 and 2006, monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios became commonly available, first in laptops and later also in standalone monitors.

Coincidentally, I am writing this on a 2008 16:10 1680x1050 Asus ASUS VW222S :

https://www.cnet.com/products/asus-vw222s-lcd-monitor-22/specs/

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, jaclaz said:

I thought that as long as you don't look at them ;) quantum pixels would work just fine :lol:.

jaclaz

That would be a problem on a Monitor.

In any case, if you don't look, the number of Pixels would be indeterminate not irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, rloew said:

That would be a problem on a Monitor.

In any case, if you don't look, the number of Pixels would be indeterminate not irrational.

Sure :), in every single non-observation ;) the number will be indeterminate, but given a sufficient number of such non-observations :w00t: the statistical result may (improbably) tend to the irrational number.

jaclaz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Well, there is definitely some differences between your experience and the "mass market", 16:10 has been popular since 2003/4 and roughly till 2008/2009 and only later shifted to 16:9, in an "industry move" to unify with TV's:

Hmm... before 2008, in most cases, I've still been seeing CRT's ;) and AFAIK, and sources you provided confirm that, companies moved 16:10 ->16:9 because they were cheaper to produce, thus cheaper to sell... and 5:4 were usually also cheaper than the 500$ I found here: https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/asus/vw222/220539/

That might be the case why I hadn't them see them, as even these days little non-professionals in my vicinity are willing to spend 500$ for PC monitor. Whack, this is still more expensive that my current double monitor display, including separate 2.0 speakers (and will get even worse if we include inflation). not to mention, my 17" Acer V173 from the era for less than 150$ :>

2 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Coincidentally, I am writing this on a 2008 16:10 1680x1050 Asus ASUS VW222S :

So I should go back to old fighting gear? hmm.

Besides, I think I'll stop replying, as I suddenly felt guilty for going far too off-topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, jaclaz said:

Sure :), in every single non-observation ;) the number will be indeterminate, but given a sufficient number of such non-observations :w00t: the statistical result may (improbably) tend to the irrational number.

jaclaz

Since non-observations do not contribute statistical data to analyze, they cannot converge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Mcinwwl said:

 and 5:4 were usually also cheaper than the 500$ I found here: https://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/review/asus/vw222/220539/

I have not a detail of how much I paid the specific monitor (it was a "bundle" with the PC, that costed, included shipping and taxes, around 900 €) but I have a copy of an offer for a couple of similar monitors of roughly the same period (February 2009):

Quote

ASUS Lcd 15,8" WIDE VW161D
8ms / 1366x768
2000:1 / D-SUB 
€ 72,00 

ASUS Lcd 17" VB172D 
5ms / 4000:1 (dinamico)
1280x1024 / D-SUB 
€ 96,90 

ASUS Lcd 19" VW193D-B 
5ms / 1440x900
850:1 / D-SUB 
€ 101,09

ASUS Lcd 20" WIDE VW202SR 
5ms / 3.000:1 
1680x1050 
Multimediale
D-SUB
€ 115,90
        
ASUS Lcd 22" WIDE 
VK222H 
2ms / Multimediale con webcam / 1680x1050
5000:1 (dinamico)
DVI - D-SUB - HDMI 
€ 193,49

ASUS Lcd 24" WIDE 
VK246H
2ms / Multimediale con webcam / 20000:1 (dinamico) / HDMI
D-SUB - DVI
€ 278,80
        
ASUS Lcd 26" (25,5") VW266H 
2ms / 1920 x 1200 / 20.000:1 (dinamico) multimediale
HDMI - D-SUB - DVI 
€ 337,40

so, very likely it was in the €120-190 range.

jaclaz

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/30/2017 at 5:09 PM, Mcinwwl said:

Hmm... before 2008, in most cases, I've still been seeing CRT's ;) and AFAIK, and sources you provided confirm that, companies moved 16:10 ->16:9 because they were cheaper to produce

Actually I believe that the cost to produce a 16:9 and a 16:10 is about the same. What made it cheaper was that one factory could save half their money by only producing one of the sizes instead of two. I would say it was a gamble that paid off, whichever company thought of it first, or if there was a multi-company agreement, to just stop making 16:10 panels at the factory.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×