Liste des Groupes | Revenir à cl c |
On Sun, 02 Mar 2025 13:17:12 -0800
Tim Rentsch <tr.17687@z991.linuxsc.com> wrote:
>Michael S <already5chosen@yahoo.com> writes:>
>On Fri, 28 Feb 2025 00:29:29 +0000>
Richard Harnden <richard.nospam@gmail.invalid> wrote:
[...]
>>Computer terminals, back in the day, were basically square,>
My impression is that even in early days 5:4 was more common than
square.
Measuring an old VGA monitor, which is pretty close to an old
computer terminal, shows an aspect ratio of 3:2 (width:height).
Certainly not square.
Are you sure that you measured viewing area?
The references that I find on the net suggest 4:3 ratio for viewing
area, which makes sense, considering 4:3 ratio of pixels in VGA's main
graphics mode (64x480).
>
240mm x 180mm for IBM 8512 color display
212mm x 155mm for IBM 8513 color display
283mm x 212mm for IBM 8514 color display
>For many years I use 1200x1920 (yes, portait) as my main monitor>
at work.
Turning Full HD 90 degrees does not work as well - 1080 is too
narrow. In this case 11% difference matters.
My sense is that an aspect ratio of 7:5 or 3:2 (in both cases
height:width) is about right for one page. We might want a small
strip of screen real estate for a header, so going from 1.5 to
1.6 seems workable (note incidentally that 1920:1200 is a ratio
of 1.6). But HD is 1.78 to 1; that shape is just awkward for
the display of text.
In case of FHD turned 90 Degrees I am less concerned about ratio.
I just find 1080 pixel width insufficient.
If somebody gives me 1200x2048 (W:H) display I will use it just fine
despite almost the same ratio as 1080x1920.
The use case is several landscape windows placed one above another. Most
of the time attention concentrated on one window, but occasionally goes
to the others without need to resize or minimize anything. I find it
more convenient than arranging windows side-by-side or then using
multiple monitors.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.