|
|
Posted by Blinky the Shark on 07/03/07 18:47
David Segall wrote:
> Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>>As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>>numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>>monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>>1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>>those?
> I bought two :) One for my computer and one for my MythTV HTPC. I am
> convinced that 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitors will replace 4:3
> monitors because they will become the standard for television viewing
> and will be much cheaper because of the huge market for them.
I agree.
I was a hold-out. I used to say, re "multimedia" computers, "No, I
haven't confused my TV and stereo, which are over there on the opposite
wall, with my computer, which is on the desk in front of me."
Then, after joining Netflix a year ago, I started watching movies on DVD
on my laptop (which has a wide-screen 15" display). By now, I've
watched a few here on my Linux desktop (19" 4:3).
I'm so ashamed. ;)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|