On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 10:43, Jim Higson wrote: > On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:36, Bill Gradwohl wrote: > > Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) > > running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of > > LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during > > installation or usage? > > I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at > all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it > comes from Windows/Linux or anything else. > > I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the > computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good > bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate > the DVI spec) you won't have any problems. > > > Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via > > emacs. More info per eye full. > > Really? > > Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square > equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The > 16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels. > 1280X720 is the pixel version of 16X9 aspect. How do you get that is lower resolution? It just makes the image fit the display. If you look at the image ratio of the 1280X1024 it is actually 4:3.2 (commonly referred to as 4:3). For two screens of the exact same width in the 2 ratios, the widescreen format would have fewer pixels displayed, but not a lower resolution. Remember, Resolution means pixels per inch (the dot pitch), not pixels on the screen. > At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although > wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is > 16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
