On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:

snip

actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found

... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums.

I thought the same thing, years ago, when I was experimenting with
screen resolutions on a CRT monitor. Wanted the highest resolution I
could comfortably use. Then, I noticed that 1280X1024 just didn't look
right, so did the numbers.

one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
than ratios.

OH, I meant resolutions, ans noted in my reply to nospam.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
looking at that spec.

They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.)

I think it may have more effect on the quality of the image, than
anything else.

[]
When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL

Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.

Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
can't get to them!

The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.

They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
correcting the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.

Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
_some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
"standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
software.

The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.

snip

This Pro-Art rotates 900
Or 8:5 (-:

Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the
degree sign when I typed the message.

snip

Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 900

Another place where I typed the degree sign.

You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in.

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just
never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
done faster.

(Even for
movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.

You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.

[]
Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
Interesting.

I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".

See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.

If I'm using a laptop with a smaller screen, I have no problem using my
5:4 monitor. It comes closer to what the owner of the laptop will see
when I'm finished. IIRC, it may have a DVI video input, too.

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had

Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
(especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.

Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.

snip

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm

Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.

The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
least 10 years older.

snip
--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"