A screen question.

In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
monitors? :-)

That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were
not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/11/19 8:19 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
[]
I have HDMI to VGA cable
[]
Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
enough to use the supply on the cable.)

What other word would you use?

Case in point... I can buy a VGA to HDMI adapter, which requires an
HDMI to HDMI cable, or I can buy a VGA to HDMI cable, which does not
require the HDMI to HDMI cable. Both have the electronics. And both
require an audio pigtail to get sound to the display device.

I don't mind "adapter", and I'm happy to accept the concept of an
adapter with captive cable(s). It's just that, to me, "cable" is
synonymous (in this context) with "lead" (or US "cord"), i. e. something
that consists of just copper, insulation, and connectors. It's more than
just pedantry: I accept (though it makes me cringe) "power cable" for a
laptop, as the brick in the middle is fairly obvious; however, for
things like SVGA to or from HDMI, or USB to or from serial/parallel, the
electronics are often small enough to be hidden inside one of the
connectors, especially if it's made just a bit larger than usual. OK,
for many users it may not matter that they don't know it isn't just a
"cable", but I think there are cases where it is necessary to know.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were
not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

Ken Springer wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

I find they generally react badly when you try to point out the error of
their ways ...

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080

This is what is puzzling to me.

If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?

I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
system, the other Mac Mojave.

Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
aspect ratio.

It's quite the conundrum.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were
not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Paul

Just for interest: that page is now headed "Monitor Asset Manager 2.9",
though it's the same utility.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

In message , Andy Burns
writes:
Ken Springer wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they
use it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

I find they generally react badly when you try to point out the error
of their ways ...

If you point it out as an error, yes.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:18:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
monitors? :-)

That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
[]

I justify the use of two screens mainly for image processing:
PhotoShop and Light Room. Image on one screen and all the little
twiddly windows and dockers on another.

But having got two screens it is great (for example) to have Firefox
on one and Agent on the other. Again, a word processor on one and a
spread sheet on another with (searfch) Everything and several examples
of Windows Explorer tucked in a corner.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

On 9/13/19 2:26 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/11/19 8:19 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
[]
I have HDMI to VGA cable
[]
Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
enough to use the supply on the cable.)

What other word would you use?

Case in point... I can buy a VGA to HDMI adapter, which requires an
HDMI to HDMI cable, or I can buy a VGA to HDMI cable, which does not
require the HDMI to HDMI cable. Both have the electronics. And both
require an audio pigtail to get sound to the display device.

I don't mind "adapter", and I'm happy to accept the concept of an
adapter with captive cable(s). It's just that, to me, "cable" is
synonymous (in this context) with "lead" (or US "cord"), i. e. something
that consists of just copper, insulation, and connectors. It's more than
just pedantry: I accept (though it makes me cringe) "power cable" for a
laptop, as the brick in the middle is fairly obvious; however, for
things like SVGA to or from HDMI, or USB to or from serial/parallel, the
electronics are often small enough to be hidden inside one of the
connectors, especially if it's made just a bit larger than usual. OK,
for many users it may not matter that they don't know it isn't just a
"cable", but I think there are cases where it is necessary to know.

You know, computer users are always using the wrong terms, and I do
complain about that occasionally. So I think I'll go your route, and
call them adapters.


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

On 9/13/19 2:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080

This is what is puzzling to me.

If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?

I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
system, the other Mac Mojave.

Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
aspect ratio.

It's quite the conundrum.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

The native resolution of my monitors are not in question. The are 16:10.

It's Rene's that puzzles me. It's listed on Asus's site at 16:9, yet 3
of the resolutions in his list are 16:10 resolutions. At the same time,
he did not list 1600:900, which Mark Lloyd suggested he try, which I
*think* he is now using.

So now I'm, in parallel, digging into my Mac options, and the options
there for resolutions are so much smaller. I think, to some extent, the
options offered may depend on the video inputs the monitor has. The
monitor on the Mac has HDMI, but on the Windows computers, no HDMI.


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

On 9/13/19 2:29 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

I find they generally react badly when you try to point out the error of
their ways ...

I wonder if it isn't more they never realized there may be a better way
for them if they would just be open to the possibility.


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