Le 26/04/2010 10:19, Invisible nous fit lire :
> http://www.xkcd.com/732/
> 
> This puzzles me too.
> 
> I mean, if you're going to force everybody to buy a new TV, new
> receiver, new type of disk and a new machine to play it, why it increase
> the resolution *significantly*? Why only increase it by a small amount?
> I don't understand that.

They are not increasing resolution, they are reducing it.
One step at a time, they increase the lcd... just to make you buy it
over and over. But from CRT, we lost a lot!

> Hell, when I was at uni ten years ago we had computers exceeding these
> resolutions. With Windows NT 4.0, Service Pack 4. Has technology not
> moved on since then? It's not like there's any technical challenge to
> using a higher resolution, after all...

In 1990, I studied on HP systems, with either VT-100 (80x24+1 line

X11, palette colours (256 entries).(the screen was flat, and weight a lot!)

PC where in 1024x768 or 1280x1024, in 16 colours or 256.
No Web then. Turbo was a 12MHz PC!

Around 2000, CRT for PC was already able to reach 1600x1200. But most
configuration was 1024x768. In 16777216 colours (256^3) or more.
Video card pushed to 10 bits per channels with gamma internal...
Then came out LCD... from laptop to desktop and TV, they killed the CRT.
The colours drop to less numbers, but this is now an hidden information.

Nowadays, all you can found in store at best is a 1920 x 1080.
1920x1200... disappearing.
2560x1600... on order only (and price is 4 digits!).

And it is LCD. No more CRT.

The fact: lcd matrix are ordered "in mass" for TV (HD ! lol), so they
only produce 1080 matrix, and computer screen have to take from that stock.

Post a reply to this message