On Sun, May 24, 2009 at 10:46 PM, Keith Lofstrom <[email protected]> wrote: > Rant! >
[snip] > The math is harder to > do for 16:9 ratio, but an honest 20 inch diagonal 16:9 is 17.432 > inches wide ( 8.9% wider ) and 9.805 inches tall (18.3% shorter). Since when is the Pythagorean Theorem (or the law of sines or cosines, for that matter) more difficult to solve for rectangles with different aspect ratios? :) 4*x^2 + 3*x^2 = 20^2 vs. 16*y^2 + 9*y^2 = 20^2 But yes, you're right, I'd much rather have either an old-style 4:3 or a "tall" monitor (physically rotatable runt would work) than the wide ones. -- M. Edward (Ed) Borasky http://www.linkedin.com/in/edborasky I've never met a happy clam. In fact, most of them were pretty steamed. _______________________________________________ PLUG mailing list [email protected] http://lists.pdxlinux.org/mailman/listinfo/plug
