>> How is it *cheaper* to design something more complicated?
> 
> Because not everyone can afford the top of the range model.  It's a well 
> known economics method to introduce several products with varying 
> performance and price to get more money overall.

...in other words, the entire reason for multiple resolutions existing 
is to extract more money from people.

>> No. But you would think that making a large monitor with a high 
>> resolution would be much cheaper than making a small monitor with a 
>> high resolution.
> 
> No, the cost of panel area outweighs all the things I mentioned above. 

Oh, OK. I assumed the difficulty of manufacturing a higher dot-pitch was 
the main problem...

>> Some movies are widescreen. But by no means all of them. Besides, the 
>> time spent watching movies is utterly dwarfed by the time spent 
>> watching normal TV - which is never widescreen.
> 
> Funny how radiotimes.com indicates almost every TV program is broadcast 
> in widescreen :-)  You need to fix your TV if you are not seeing a 
> widescreen picture from normal TV.

I especially love how I have a widescreen TV, but you have to manually 
flip between 4:3 and 16:9 aspect. Even though it's connected by a 
digital link, so you'd think it could *detect* which kind of signal it's 
receiving...

That being the case, it's not entirely easy to tell whether you're 
watching a widescreen broadcast, or a normal one with the top cut off. 
(Unless of course you configure the TV to show black bars at the side - 
but it's my mum's TV, and she always complains when I configure it that 
way.)

Post a reply to this message