On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote: > On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > > > a bit of a digression, is there any sane rationale to the myriad of acronyms > > for display resolution? > > marketing. xga was the IBM eXtended Graphics Adapter which supported > 1024x768 albiet interlaced. for the longest time all resultions above > that were typically described by h v and refresh rate. Then some marketing > droid got a wild hare and now here we are... lcd's simplify things a lot > since most of them are designed to work at 60hz as there native > refresh rate. There used to be a serious qualitative difference > between at crt at 1600x1200x60hz and one at 75 or 80 that doesn't exist > when comparing lcd panels in general. There is a difference, but not one you can usually get data on. That is how fast the pixels refresh. My old dual twist monitor on my old P-90 laptop would leave vapor trails. Playing Doom was interesting. Like being drunk while playing. > > the last two times i went looking to buy a laptop > > (from dell), i was thoroughly annoyed that they'll list, right up front, that > > a unit has something like XGA, or SXGA, or XGA+, or UXGA or whatever. and > > all i want to know is, what is the freaking resolution in pixels? The HP i was looking at today had a WUXGA screen. I was starting to wonder what variety of Kung Fu they taught it. > > > > is there a standard for these acronyms? and does everyone follow that > > standard, or do we have vendors just making this stuff up out of thin air? i > > fully expect to see new laptops offering SDXGA (sooper dooper XGA) as the > > next available resolution. > > > > is there a list? who do i have to kill to read it? > > > > rday > > > > > > > >
