×
The internal search function is temporarily non-functional. The current search engine is no longer viable and we are researching alternatives.
As a stop gap measure, we are using Google's custom search engine service.
If you know of an easy to use, open source, search engine ... please contact support@midrange.com.
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 1:39 PM, Wilson, Jonathan
<piercing_male@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Using much longer lines would probably, in my humble opinion, probably
cause more problems than solutions for most developers working on
normal sized (4:3) monitors.
I think you will be hard-pressed to find many folks using 4:3 monitors
today. I'm sure there are some, but it is definitely NOT the "normal
size" in 2015, and hasn't been since CRTs were almost entirely
supplanted by LCDs.
The single most common monitor resolution, due to the prevalence of
inexpensive to moderately priced laptops, is 1366x768, which is
slightly wider than 16:9. If you include all laptops and desktops, you
will find that the vast majority are now either 16:10 or 16:9. Also,
it's true that pixels don't have to be square, so pixel counts do not
necessarily correspond to the final aspect ratio; but for the most
part they are either square or close to square these days. (I did have
an old Hercules monochrome graphics card that was 720x348 on a 4:3 CRT
monitor. And some folks used their CGA adapters in 640x200 mode.)
John Y.
midrange.com
