"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

[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.