> > > Would somebody please explain to me why, in all of Apple's widescreen
> > > displays, they never make a REAL widescreen (i.e. 16x9) display?
> > > Widescreen is useless if it's not 16x9, as any DVD owner will tell you.
> > > (The new iMac is about 1.6 to 1, which is not wide enough of course)
> > "Widescreen" does not specify a fixed ratio.
> All widescreen TVs are 16x9. Why, then, should computer displays not
Because they serve a wider range of purposes than TVs?
Look at the right edge of your keyboard. Now look at a typical
telephone. Which one has the numbers in the right formation?
Seriously: Let's presume I do _nothing_ with my computer except watch
DVDs (in reality, I _never_ watch DVDs on my desktop machine and only
rarely do on my notebook). I look at my DVD collection and I see aspect
ratios of 4:3 and 2.35:1 and several alternatives in between. Why
_should_ the display be 16:9?
> > Aside from that, I might
> > note that the 1440x900 aspect ratio gives you 16x9 plus room for the
> > window frame and menu bar.
> Not when playing DVDs, it doesn't.
Funny. It looks like it does. If I do a "full screen" presentation of a
16:9 movie, I'll get small black bars top and bottom. If I do a
maximally sized window there will be enough room for the menu bar, the
title bar and a small fraction of an inch of bare desktop above and
below the window.
G (And the answer to the phone/keyboard thing actually has nothing to
do with use or usability, but it seemed like a good illustration.)