Monitor Size Oddity?

Heyward Ehrlich (ehrlich@andromeda.rutgers.edu)
Mon, 2 Jun 97 20:19:40 EDT

In case anyone cares, I took a tape measure to a 1990 vintage
Sony 13" monitor and found the tube diagonal was 13.0". But
a 1996 Gateway 15" monitor picture tube was 13.5" diagonal,
almost the same actual size. But since Win 95 screen fonts are
smaller than Win 3 fonts, the "15" actually produced smaller screen
characters in Win 95 than the "13" in Win 3.

The image difference between the two was 1.0" since the 1996
monitor filled the screen better and retained consistent image
size better between Windows and DOS than the 1990 monitor.

I can't judge whether this a principle of mail order marketing
(the actual sizes are now given in ads), but if you are planning
on upgrading an old monitor, you'd have to increase screen sixe by
20% (13" to 17") to get default screen characters the same size in
Win 95 as what yuou had in Win 3. Since my eyes are becoming
sensitive to small objects, this is significant.

By the way, the 1990 Sony registers gray as gray, not as taupe. If
you work in serious images, this could be important. The Sony was
part of a Gateway package and cost me a premium of $300 or more
at the time. Since a first class 17" monitor now costs at least
$600, monitor prices have apparently not dropped the way the rest
of the bnx has in the last 7 years. No wonder "monitor not included."
And I notice in recent Gateway ads that a bottom of the line monitor
is incuded.

H.