"Why can't they just say how many pixels the bloody thing's got?"

[unixronin]

Ever get lost in the alphabet soup of UXGA, WXGA, WSGXA+, WUXGA and wonder WTF they all actually mean?

Here's a handy key (along with an explanation of how we got into this mess).

Comments

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

This is almost funny. One of the main reasons that we went with the alphabet soup designations over dots is because manufacturers were hiding little details like the high resolution was interlaced. With the adapter standard, you would know, not just the resolution, but how you got that resolution, and what refresh frequency was supported. That was far more important when overdriving monitors was very easy, since adapters cost radically less than the monitors that supported them. (Too high a refresh would smoke a monitor.)

I find the article suspect because HDTV is a 16:9 aspect ratio, not 16:10. 5:4 is a big screen movie ratio, hence why it is important. The error just bugged me.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I find the article suspect because HDTV is a 16:9 aspect ratio, not 16:10.

Ummmm ... and this conflicts how, exactly, with what he says? I quote:

"High Definition Television (HDTV) specifies a screen width to height ratio of 16 to 9; digital broadcast HDTV uses a resolution of 1920×1080 pixels for high resolution mode, which conforms precisely to this ratio."

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

Under the 4x3 section:

Note that the ancient IBM CGA actually has a pixel ratio of 16/10, just like the hottest new wide-screen HDTV displays.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Huh. I missed that. I guess my brain registered "CGA" and recoiled in horror. It's misleading though — CGA has a 4:3 screen, it just has horribly non-square pixels. And then there's the high-definition mode ... Ugh. Let's just leave CGA quietly dead.

[arasirsul.livejournal.com]

5:4 is kinda weird, though, in that for many of the other formats (notable exceptions being things like old-school CGA), it's assumed the pixels are square.

For 1280x1024 and the other SXGA derivatives, which are 5:4, the screen you put those pixels on is generally still 4:3.

"How we got there" is even easier than the article implies: Laptop manufacturers assume we're stupid and we'll buy a nice cheap-to-produce WXGA screen over a expensive-to-produce UXGA screen because the WXGA screen is 15.4" in diagonal compared to the UXGA screen's 15.1".

Problem is, for the most part, they're right, which is why they haven't changed...

[tww1fa]

Actually, most 1280x1024 monitors I've seen are 5:4 aspect ratio with square pixels - they look taller than the 4:3 monitors.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah. I never use 1280x1024 resolution on anything because the non-square pixels look so bad. EGA was even worse.

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

EGA was the first digital mode display. The displays were crisp and clear, the first color displays to be other than fuzzy. There is no need to use it now, but it was a godsend when it first came out.

I like the 1280x1024 resolution. I use it by preference on most of my systems. The refresh is high enough that it doesn't flicker. The display shows enough that I can do several things at once, when I get going. The fonts are large enough that I can use the native font, not the large one.

[metahacker.livejournal.com]

Good grief. It's as bad as Harleys.

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

Nothing is as bad as harleys...

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Except that no one's figured out how to make a computer screen leak oil.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

What, Lucas hasn't diversified into computers yet?


(Y'know, that'd be the perfect finishing touch for the steampunk monitor/keyboard/mouse etc. Artificial minor oil seeps. Probably castor oil would be best.)

[bikergeek.livejournal.com]

Overheat your CPU and your office will smell like Brands Hatch.

[laurarey.livejournal.com]

Bookmarked for future use. Thanks for posting this!