Talk:List of computer display standards/Archive 1

Archive 1

Plea to merge 9 overlapping articles

This Computer display standard article, while certainly helpful, is simply running in parallel with 8 other articles:

• Display resolution
• Aspect ratio (image)
• List of common resolutions
• Widescreen
• High-definition display resolutions
• Template:Widescreen monitor resolutions
• Template:Monitor resolutions
• Template:HD resolutions

Also look at these:

• Computer monitor
• Aspect ratio

It's one of those cases where authors should be looking beyond the page they've landed on or maintained, and come together in a way that will strengthen everybody's work and deepen everyone's insights. I don't know how the merger process is authorized, but this is a plea to get this thematic mess organized.

Please see the talk pages on each of those pages for ALL comments related to this issue.

Thanks for your attention. A.k.a. (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Please Group by Family

Please group this list by family so that the first column is Family (cga, ega, vga, svga, etc) followed by the names of resolutions in that family. The current list is disorganized in that you have the normal resolution (xga) and the wide version of it (wxga) separated. They should be grouped together. Lastly, move the comments/notes text to the rightmost column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.155.35.130 (talk) 15:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Connectors

This article is almost exclusively about resolutions, but for someone trying to work with monitors and cards, I think it's important also to mention the connectors used (DE-15/DB-15HD, DVI, HDMI, and the whachamacallit three-connector ones) and their capabilities (analog, digital, limits). Preferably as a links to the relevant articles from the table. --Treekids 17:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, so here are the connectors I've seen available for the resolutions I've used. Others, please fill in so we can add this column to the main article table...

Table of computer display standards

Video standard	Connector(s)
MDA	DE-9
CGA	DE-9
Hercules	DE-9
EGA	DE-9
Professional Graphics Controller	DE-9?
MCGA	DE-15?
8514	DE-15?
VGA	DE-15
SVGA	DE-15
XGA	DE-15
QVGA	N/A (built-in LCD)
QQVGA	N/A (built-in LCD)
WXGA	DE-15
SXGA	DE-15
WXGA+, or WXGA, (or WSXGA)	DE-15
WSXGA+	DE-15
UXGA	DE-15
WUXGA	DE-15, DVI
2K	?
QXGA	?
WQXGA	DVI
QSXGA	?
WQSXGA	?
QUXGA	?
WQUXGA	?
4K	?
HXGA	?
WHXGA	?
HSXGA	?
WHSXGA	?
HUXGA	?
WHUXGA	?
480i	HDMI
480p	HDMI
576i	HDMI
576p	HDMI
720p	HDMI
1080i	HDMI
1080p	HDMI
1440p	HDMI

Common resolutions

The Psion 5 page mentions "640x240 pixels with 16 greyscales, also known as half-VGA." I think mentioning "640x240 pixels (VGA)" would better link to a brief list of (other) common resolutions (and their "marketing name"), rather than a bunch of technical details about VGA hardware in particular. This page seems to talk more about historical development ... is there some other page that is just that brief list ? —DavidCary 05:31, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Not sure VGA=MCGA

I mean to have read that VGA and MCGA isn't the same at all. IIRC, MCGA was a lesser-featured version of VGA, used on some low-end IBM PS/2 models in the late 80s/early 90s. —Wernher 00:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

MCGA was IBM's original design of what was to become the VGA standard. The differences were really rather minor. This did end up causing some confusion: Some computer games from the era call their VGA mode MCGA mode, etc. etc. I think the subject is adequately treated; MCGA is really a minor note in the history of graphics arrays, and the MCGA article is correspondingly short. —Alexwcovington 01:24, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The differences are far more than minor. MCGA introduced the 18-bit color pallet and 256-color 320x200 graphics mode that VGA also used, but there's where the differences end; MCGA utilized only 64k of frame buffer memory, and did not have all the high-res graphics capabilities of VGA; there was no 320x240x256color mode (or higher), at 640x480 it was limited to black and white whereas VGA could do 16 colors.

According to Scott Mueller's book, MCGA was introduced the same year as VGA on PS/2 modesl 25 and 30 - it looks more like a stunted "cheapitized" version of a display adapter with a little bit of VGA compatibility. Hard to believe that the difference between 64K of video RAM and 512K of video RAM once made hundreds of dollars difference in the price point, but that's the way it was in 1987. —Wtshymanski 21:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Related slashdot thread

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126622&cid=10594433
VGA etc., alphabet soup (Score: 0)
by Anonymous Coward on Thursday October 21, @09:59PM (#10594433)

Wasn't VGA 640x480 at a mere 256 colors? And didn't it imply a particular ISA (Industry Standard Architecture) bus interface as well? Plus, who can keep track of what WUXGA and QWVGA and UHDWMRXGA all mean? Was somebody just leaning on the keyboard,

VGA was 640x480x16 color, and it MEANT MCA (IBM's MicroChannel Architecture) with VGA bus lines, and PS/2 (not Sony, like your keyboard port rather) VGA BIOS. It also was 320x240x256; MCGA, meant ISA at 320x200x256.

Q - quad, just multiply everything by 2 (2x2=4).

W - take the vertical resolution and do the 16:9 to it to get the horizontal.

DSCGA/DCGA - double scan CGA, no increase in addressable resolution, but dump it on a QCGA screen.

Name - Horz x Vert x Colr

CGA  -   40 x   25 x  16
MDA  -   80 x   25 x   4
CGA  -   80 x   25 x  16
EGA  -   80 x   43 x   4
VGA  -   80 x   50 x   4
CGA  -  132 x   25 x   4
EGA  -  132 x   43 x   4
VGA  -  132 x   50 x   4
CGA  -  160 x  200 x  16
CGA  -  320 x  200 x   4
MCGA -  320 x  200 x 256
EGA  -  320 x  240 x  16
VGA  -  320 x  240 x 256
EGA  -  320 x  400 x  16
CGA  -  640 x  240 x   2
EGA  -  640 x  350 x   4
PGA  -  640 x  400 x  16
VGA  -  640 x  480 x  16, used to be called SuperEGA/SEGA
HGC  -  720 x  348 x  16

MDA  -   80 x   25
CGA  -  320 x  200
MCGA -  320 x  240
SCGA -  640 x  240
EGA  -  640 x  350
PGA  -  640 x  400
VGA  -  640 x  480
HGC  -  720 x  350
SVGA -  800 x  600, SuperVGA
EVGA - 1024 x  768, ExtendedVGA, now called XGA
UVGA - 1280 x 1024, UltraVGA,    now called SXGA
XVGA - 1600 x 1200, ExtraVGA,    now called UXGA

Note that VGA is also 8512/A; and XGA was preceded by 8514/A, at the same resolution.

---

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=126622&cid=10594470
Re: I'm Confused (Score: 2)
by Animaether (411575) on Thursday October 21, @10:09PM (#10594470)

It's really not that difficult - if you're into this sort of thing.

But fear not... I've already seen flat panel display manufacturers label their screens in megapixels - to match digital cameras, I'm sure. That should satisfy your quest ... maybe. Assuming that all screens remain at a 4:3 aspect ratio anyway. Wouldn't want them to become 2:3 to match traditional photos, or 16:9 for widescreen or 16:10 to match widescreen laptop displays, or 2:1 because the movie industry keeps stretching the da*n image horizontally to 'outperform' TV screens. *urgh*

And that's not even taking screen size (hello!), or dot pitch (if CRT) / matrix spacing (if LCD/etc.) into account. I'm not quite sure how only listing the resolution will make things easier. That said, I don't know of any site which lists *only* the acronym. Most actually seem to only list the pixels WxH.

For the curious, here's a list of acronyms and their common resolutions and such - can't say I'm familiar with UHDWMRXGA though ;) :

Horz x Vert  Acronym  ---- Name ----

 320 x  200  CGA     Color Graphics Array
 320 x  240  QVGA    Quarter VGA
 400 x  300  QSVGA   Quarter SVGA
 640 x  350  EGA     Enhanced Graphics Adapter*
 640 x  480  VGA     Video Graphics Array
 720 x  350  MDA     Monochrome Display Adapter*
 800 x  600  SVGA    Super VGA
1024 x  768  XGA     eXtended Graphics Array
1200 x  800  XGA-W   (Wide Laptops)*
1152 x  768  Apple   Powerbook G4*
1152 x  870  Apple   Macintosh*
1152 x  900  Sun     MicroSystems*
1280 x 1024  SXGA    Super XGA*
1400 x 1050  SXGA+   (Laptops)
1600 x 1024  SXGA-W  (Wide)*
1680 x 1050  SXGA-W  (Wide Laptops)*
1600 x 1200  UXGA -  Ultra XGA
1920 x 1200  UXGA-W  (Wide)*
2048 x 1536  QXGA    Quad XGA
2560 x 2048  QSXGA   Quad SXGA*
3200 x 2048  QSXGA-W (Wide)*
3200 x 2400  QUXGA   Quad UXGA
3840 x 2400  QUXGA-W (Wide)*
5120 x 4096  HSXGA   Hexadecimal SXGA*
6400 x 4096  HSXGA-W (Wide)*
6400 x 4800  HUXGA   Hexadecimal UXGA
7680 x 4800  HUXGA-W (Wide)*

Then there's the movie industry 1k/2k/4k/etc. resolutions, and NTSC's specs inluding QCIF as well as the PAL spec QSIF not to mention a few dozen resolutions introduced by digital cameras and so forth and so on... ick.

"Note: Thread contributed by Anonymous, and structured/layout-fixed by —Wernher 00:04, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Why hide both of these excellent lists on the talk page? The information in them are much closer to what I expected when I came here.

2560 x 1600

What would be the standard for the size of Apple's 30" Cinema HD Display? I think logically the name would be QWXGA, since 2560 x 1600 is the quad of 1280 x 800, which is WXGA.

Should QWXGA be added to the list?

—RadRafe 11:38, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Never mind, it's WQXGA. —RadRafe | t 11:00, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Removed duplicate content that's at display resolutions

By this page's own defition a computer display standard is that those include both color depth and resolution. Most of the information here is simply on "display resolutions", not "computer display standards" (according to the defititions I have read here). I left those resolution standards that included color depth ... thus... I have removed the "display resolution" standards that lack these.

Edit: I'm also adding resolutions that weren't at display resolutions to there... since that is the more appropriate spot. —Ctachme 02:26, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

All the world is not an IBM PC

This article effectively only talks about IBM PC-descended video standards. Are there any Mac users in the audience? I understand that later Macs tended to use "PC-compatible" monitors because it was convenient, once the PC world caught up to Macintosh's capabilities. But it would be nice to have a different perspective here. At this rate Wikipedia will be teaching the kids that Bill Gates invented the PC in 1995 to showcase Gate's new Windows operating system... —Wtshymanski 21:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Actually, it's okay, because it's about resolution standards, which are just handy labels for the common combinations of resolutions and colour depths. Mac displays have had many of the same resolutions. The tech specs just don't list these names. For instance, Apple "could" call their 23" Cinema HD Display a WUXGA screen, because its resolution is WUXGA. They just don't, for marketing reasons. —RadRafe | t 10:58, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Apple doesn't make the screens in their displays anyway. Just like Dell, I believe they buy them from one of the few manufacturers that actually make them (mostly in Japan). So it's not just that they want compatibility with PC standards, but that they need to go with what is available to them. Microsoft does little to set graphics hardware standards. This is done independently, and MS follows along like Apple does now. —Sethhoyt 11:31, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Many earlier Macs did support unnamed formats such as 832 x 624 and 1152 x 870. —Toytoy 23:59, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

The old compact Mac (up through SE/30) had 512x342, the only 3:2 monitors I know of (I think the later Classics changed to 512x384). PLATO IV's plasma display was 512x512. —Tamfang 03:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Macs are one of the only places you see 3:2 monitors, including the one I'm typing on right now (15" Powerbook G4) - the only way to watch DVDs at native aspect ratios! —Atchius 02:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

This article indeed suffers from an untolerable level of PC-centric POV. I was planning to write something on display modes, with a much more generic point of view and some coverage on notable historical/non-PC hardware and the techniques/resolutions used there, but I just got redirected here. Now, I think we basically have two options:

• A) Rename this article to "PC-compatible display standard" or something, so we don't need to include non-PC stuff here.
• B) Don't rename, just mark PC-specific information where it exists and do considerable expansion to non-PC world.

Opinions? —Viznut 20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Made it a table

I just edited the page rather heavily to make the definition list a table. I felt I had a hard time finding out the factual bits of the standards in the descriptions when browsing the list, so I thought this was a bit better. It condenses the list too by not having the names alone on a line. I tried to carefully remove some parts of the descriptions where no information would be lost due to the new columns, so the description cells didn't get unecessarily large and wordy. I hope I didn't goof up anywhere and this is OK with you. :-)

Some additional thoughts on this is that the (excellent!) right-aligned picture consume a lot of space for the entire table, which was a bit annoying, especially if a new column would be added in the future. It would maybe cram the table together a bit much with that space lost. —Jugalator 01:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I added a "'<br clear="all"/>'" tag to force the table below the image, which allows the table to expand to a more useful width. (I think both the bullet- and definition-style lists would not have this problem, but the table "is" useful.) I also severely trimmed the image caption to reduce its vertical space consumption. Unfortunately, that still leaves a lot of whitespace between the text and the table at higher display resolutions and browser window sizes. Perhaps someone could expand usefully on this section before the table? Explaining the image might be useful, and is probably better than a cryptically terse but still lengthy caption. —Jeff Q (talk) 07:49, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ambiguity of display standards

Some articles about display hardware (e.g. CGA, VGA, EGA, etc.) also talk about the resolutions. I suggest we reduce the ambiguity by splitting them into article namesakes following CGA (resolution), CGA (hardware) (or maybe Color Graphics Adaptor (resolution) and/or Color Graphics Adaptor (hardware)). —Nintendude ^{userpage | message} 16:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

DVI

Aren't DVI and HDMI widely used nowadays? Should they get a mention in the text, or at least a link? —Jim.henderson 02:05, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WSVGA & monitor resolutions

Wide SVGA is featured in "ultramobile PC" devices such as the Samsung Q1U. It is listed in the image but not in

	x (width)	y (height)	Pixels (Mpx)	Aspect ratio	Proportion difference of total pixels							Typical sizes (inch)	Non-wide version	Note
Name					WXGA	WXGA+	WSXGA+	WUXGA	UW-UXGA	WQHD	WQXGA
WXGA	1280	800	1.024	1.6	—	−21%	−42%	−56%	−63%	−72%	−75%	15–19	XGA
WSXGA/WXGA+	1440	900	1.296	1.6	+27%	—	−27%	−44%	−53%	−65%	−68%	15–19	XGA+
WSXGA+	1680	1050	1.764	1.6	+72%	+36%	—	−23%	−36%	−52%	−57%	20–22	SXGA+
WUXGA	1920	1200	2.304	1.6	+125%	+78%	+31%	—	−17%	−38%	−44%	23–28	UXGA	Displays 1920×1080 video with slight letterbox
UW-UXGA	2560	1080	2.765	2.37	+170%	+113%	+57%	+20%	—	−25%	−32%	29, 34	SXGA+
WQHD	2560	1440	3.686	1.778	+260%	+184%	+109%	+60%	+33%	—	−10%	27
WQXGA	2560	1600	4.096	1.6	+300%	+216%	+132%	+78%	+48%	+11%	—	30+	QXGA	Complements portrait UXGA

nor in the text of this article!? Where does one edit

	x (width)	y (height)	Pixels (Mpx)	Aspect ratio	Proportion difference of total pixels							Typical sizes (inch)	Non-wide version	Note
Name					WXGA	WXGA+	WSXGA+	WUXGA	UW-UXGA	WQHD	WQXGA
WXGA	1280	800	1.024	1.6	—	−21%	−42%	−56%	−63%	−72%	−75%	15–19	XGA
WSXGA/WXGA+	1440	900	1.296	1.6	+27%	—	−27%	−44%	−53%	−65%	−68%	15–19	XGA+
WSXGA+	1680	1050	1.764	1.6	+72%	+36%	—	−23%	−36%	−52%	−57%	20–22	SXGA+
WUXGA	1920	1200	2.304	1.6	+125%	+78%	+31%	—	−17%	−38%	−44%	23–28	UXGA	Displays 1920×1080 video with slight letterbox
UW-UXGA	2560	1080	2.765	2.37	+170%	+113%	+57%	+20%	—	−25%	−32%	29, 34	SXGA+
WQHD	2560	1440	3.686	1.778	+260%	+184%	+109%	+60%	+33%	—	−10%	27
WQXGA	2560	1600	4.096	1.6	+300%	+216%	+132%	+78%	+48%	+11%	—	30+	QXGA	Complements portrait UXGA

? --Treekids (talk) 20:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I added it now. Thanks for pointing this out. --Eivind Kjørstad (talk) 10:56, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

The Vector_Video_Standards2.svg‎ Image

I'd like to comment on the image. First of all, I have never seen or heard of the 1280x854, 1152x768, or 1440x960 resolutions, nor can I find any references to them in the articles about the other resolutions. They are in need of either explanation or removal. Secondly, I'd like to see the inclusion of 400x300, 512x384, and 960x720, because many games offer those as playable resolutions. I'd also like to see 640x400 (QCGA?) on the chart because I'm pretty sure that the Windows versions of Command & Conquer and C&C: Red Alert used it. Third, why in the nine circles of Hell are NTSC and PAL on the chart? They're television standards, not computer display standards! 71.116.111.36 (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC) G-Max

what is the norm, now?

what is the norm, now? 16:10 ratio for computer screens? it doesn't say in the article. Twipley (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

What about 1600 x 900 ( WXGA++ )

I did not see that res in the list. I have a friend that uses it. Here is a link for a laptop with it http://www.directron.com/fw180eh.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.65.225 (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

I second this, Dell and other companies sell laptops and monitors with 900P screens. I feel this screen resolution should be added to the picture in this article. Here is some products that use this resolution: http://www.google.com/products?q=1600x900 Audiophile1 (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

While it remains unnamed in the diagram, this 16:9 ratio screen is now being referred to by manufacturers (Lenovo) as HD+, and presumably will also be called HD 900, according to the display resolution diagram.

Note, however, that HD+ is also being used by the same manufacturer to refer to a screen slightly larger, at 1680x945, which also (I think) represents a 16:9 ratio. 64.142.9.251 (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Flat Panel portrait resolution

Did a search on wiki, could not find any page with it.

Now that LCDs and plasmas can turn on there side is there a new set of standard resolutions ? A list of them would be handy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.65.225 (talk) 01:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Hand-held devices missing

The resolutions of screens of current hand-held devices, that are in fact computers with strong focus on communication and phone abilities, like iPhone/iPod Touch, Blackberry, Palm PRE, are missing. These devices are used to surf the web, chat and e-mail and therefore take over some of the tasks usually done using a desktop or portable computer. These are the tools we use today. If 30 inch screens are on the list, so should the screens of iPhones and similar devices. The list is not just growing on the high pixel number end. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.53.117.141 (talk) 08:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

What standard?

Who comes all these meaningless acronyms? What standard specifies them? If there isn't an actual (formal) standard for them, then the page should be called something different. And they surely can't honestly be said to stand for "[anything] Graphics Array" -- it would be more accurate to say that "GA" is now a commonly-used suffix meaning "display device". 18.26.0.5 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Issues with article

Note to readers/editors: Some serious weakness of this topic: This topic on "standards" does not list the actual industry standard that applies.

• The history section gives no history.
• Having a standard does not mean you can buy the product in the commercial market. It is worth noting which of the various "standard" products are actually abandoned standards or only wish-list products from the perspective of the general consumer market. This is particularly true of any mention of 4:3 aspect ratio products, almost true of 16:10 aspect ratio products, and almost true of products with more than 1080 lines of resolution.
• It is worth noting where the industry is moving.

The table below [under standards] does not show that in the 2009-2010 time frame, in part due to a move by display panel manufacturers and PC manufacturers wishing to create a product that is compatible with entertainment displays (i.e., TV sets), virtually all displays with a) more than 1080 lines of resolution and b) any aspect ratio that differs from 16:9, were removed from the general consumer market. There may be a standard that describes some of the display resolutions listed below, but there is a discontinuity between what has a standard and what is available in the market. Apple is the only remaining computer manufacturer that is still marketing displays with a 16:10 aspect ratio. 67.176.121.238 (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2010 UTC Preceding comments moved from the article to the talk page by Makyen (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the table needs some updating to show which resolutions are in current usage and which have been discontinued. I've already updated the main 16:10 resolutions to reflect this, but most other entries should also have their descriptions reviewed, and present tense replaced with past tense where appropriate.

However, I don't think this article is the right place for going into the 16:10 vs. 16:9 issue, as the 16:10 article already covers it in sufficient detail.

On a related note, Apple isn't the only manufacturer offering products with 16:10 aspect ratio (as you claim). There exist several new (ie. Sandy Bridge-era) notebooks with 16:10 displays, as well as desktop monitors. Of course, as with Apple's computers, these products are probably using existing stock and will be forced to switch to 16:9 soon, but right now they do exist. Also, most slate PCs use 16:10 or 4:3 displays. Although these devices aren't traditionally considered computers, it does mean that these resolutions are still available on the consumer market, just in a different form factor. Indrek (talk) 20:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

32 bpp or 24 bpp

I replaced 32 bpp with 24 bpp on this page as I never heard of any common display with 32 bpp color depth. The last 8 bits are used in software and video hardware (GPU's) for the alpha channel. Once transmitting to the monitor, the alpha channel makes no sense any more, and I seriously do not think any displays use it. I have also seen lots of "HD compliant" televisions with 16.7M color support. Those TV's would be be compliant if they had to support 32 bpp color depth to be compliant. If I'm correct, this page has been wrong for years now. We should really source raw data tables like these, but it seems that it is quite hard to find a real standards document about these resolutions. I guess it's actually more of a marketing term. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:49, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

What VGA can really do

VGA can do a lot more than just 640x480 and text (it's highly programmable); it could really use its own page. —-lee 21 July 2003 00:29 (UTC)

Yes — VGA. —Anonymous

Refactoring

"Display standard" is a pretty vague term. I think the page needs to be rewritten (and maybe combined with other pages; I haven't checked) to define the "protocol stack" involved. in other words, to explain that a display standard could refer to a resolution and bit depth combo (or a set of them), an API, internal chipset interfaces, a monitor electrical interface, or some combination of all of these, and also to be way less PC-architecture specific.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bressen (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Refresh rates

As far as I know, refresh rates are just as an important part of a PC display standard as resolution and color depth.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.54.30.240 (talk) 00:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

5120x2160

5120x2160, listed here as 'unnamed', is referred to by vendors of such displays (LG and especially Samsung) as "5K" but also "Wide UHD". Enough to qualify inclusion here? The Seventh Taylor (talk) 00:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems that 5120x2880 will be more popular (having the standard 16:9 aspect ratio at 16x 720p), as the first monitor with that resolution was announced yesterday by Dell. Neuhaus (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

This talk page has archive instructions for both Indexerbot and MiszaBot, plus two archive search boxes. I would delete one, but I don't know which one should go. Ringbang (talk) 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The Mizabot and HBC Archive Indexerbot configurations are for two separate bots which are intended to coexist. Neither should be removed. The Mizabot configuration directs the actual archiving (now performed by User:lowercase sigmabot III). The HBC Archive Indexerbot config direct the archives to be indexed and the index to be stored at Talk:Computer display standard/Archive index. However, the bots which used to do the indexing are basically dead at this point. There has been some discussion of getting one back working, or a new one. — Makyen (talk) 06:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

nxn

I question Makyen's edit of 2014 January 2:

Change all n×n to nxn per WP:MOS#Common mathematical symbols and WP:DATE#Common mathematical symbols. Gen fixes. using AWB

The two passages cited (MOS:COMMONMATH and WP:COMMONMATH respectively) say:

For a multiplication sign between numbers, use × (Unicode character U+00D7 MULTIPLICATION SIGN), which is input by clicking on it in the edit toolbox under the edit window or by typing ×. The letter x should not be used to indicate multiplication, but it is used (unspaced) as the substitute for "by" in terms such as 4x4.

Do not use the letter "x" to indicate multiplication. However, an unspaced "x" may be used as a substitute for "by" in common terms such as "4x4".

Neither passage prefers the letter, though they allow it for "common terms". Incidentally, 4x4 redirects to Four-wheel drive, whose lead sentence contains 4×4 (with the × symbol, not the letter). —Tamfang (talk) 04:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this at WT:MOSDATE earlier this year, with no clear consensus reached (other than that articles should probably use one or the other throughout). Consequently, both "x" and "×" are currently in use.

As for the specific edit you refer to, while it's true that "x" is merely allowed, do note that unspaced "×" is expressly forbidden. Also, FWIW, the phrasing of the MOS sections you cite was changed repeatedly (including wikilinking "4x4") after @Makyen's edit. Indrek (talk) 06:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I support using the actual multiplication sign, since it allows better legibility, given that the multiplication sign is smaller, has more space at edges, and thus allows to distinguish numbers better: see 4x4 vs 4×4.

Another argument for using the multiplication sign is that a construct in 2048×1536 px format is a multiplication in and of itself, because when calculated, it results in approximately 3.15 megapixels.

One caveat to exclusivey preferring the multiplication sign is that many older devices, such as Internet-enabled feature phones, are in some cases unable to display that character due mostly to poor UTF-8 support. While most mobile devices are now smartphones, phablets and tablets equipped with modern mobile operating systems, the usage share of which is steadily growing and in some advanced markets having already reached a saturation rate, then millions of Internet-enabled feature phones are still in use, despite their age and limited functionality. -Mardus (talk) 04:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another argument for using the multiplication sign is that a construct in 2048×1536 px format is a multiplication in and of itself, because when calculated, it results in approximately 3.15 megapixels. That's actually incorrect. Resolutions are defined by pixel counts in both dimensions, not the total pixel count. Multiplication merely determines one attribute of the resolution (total pixel count), just like division determines another one (aspect ratio). The purpose of the symbol between the numbers is to delimit them, rather than to imply any specific mathematical operation. Indrek (talk) 05:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Multiplication merely determines one attribute of the resolution (total pixel count) — Which is what I was arguing for. The total pixel count is useful in relation to comparing them to resolutions of digital cameras. btw, Thaks for introducing the {{tq}} template to me. -Mardus (talk) 05:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As mentioned, there was a long discussion about this at MOS. The underlying issue is that WP:MOS explicitly makes the "N×N" not permitted. If "×" is used then a space on both sides and units for both numbers must be provided. Thus, it would be "N pixels × N pixels". Any discussion we have here can not, as a matter of policy (WP:Local consensus), override that.

At the beginning of that discussion I was more-or-less ambivalent about the use of one or the other. The fact that multiple people brought up the argument that "×" should be used because it is an inherent multiplication indicates to me that there is confusion as to what is actually represented. It appeared that the use of the multiplication symbol helps foster this misunderstanding. Because of that I am against the use of the "×" symbol as a separator.— Makyen (talk) 06:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In my default font (Lucida Sans), ‘×’ is wider than ‘x’, but I don't mind. —Tamfang (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer display standard. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140329085008/http://www.vgamuseum.info/images/stories/doc/historysm.png to http://www.vgamuseum.info/images/stories/doc/historysm.png

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:05, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

Definition of computer display standards

I have issues with "computer display standard" as a concept and I would like to discuss a total rework of the way Wikipedia is approaching this subject, beginning here.

If we're referring only to resolutions, then Display resolutions has that definition and List of common resolutions has a more concise listing than this one, and I see no reason to duplicate those efforts - we could just blow away this page and redirect to one of those. However, if we look at Template:Computer_display_standard, it lists the video display standards of the early PC era - CGA, EGA, etc. stopping at SVGA. There are two problems with this: first, it is very IBM-focused, and second, the last standard is a de-facto one from the late 80s. Surely this isn't true - all computer hardware video standards could not be from the IBM PC, and surely there are some made after 1987.

What are we trying to say with "computer display standard"? It's not just a resolution; all of these resolutions can be used by things that aren't computers. And someone saw fit (and many people did not see a reason to remove) the list of PC clone video cards from the template. Furthermore, how are EGA, VGA, etc. "standards"? IBM never published them as such, they just put out technical manuals for their proprietary products, and other companies cloned them.

So what is EGA, for instance, except an agreed-upon set of memory locations, registers, and so on that several graphics cards can use? I argue it is nothing more than those things, and together they are the definition of an API. Well, it really IS the case that, with the exception of VBE, graphics cards really don't share any standards of this type anymore - modern cards do not have register-compatibility in the way 1980s cards did, beyond support for VBE and VGA. They DO share APIs, however, just at a higher level of abstraction. In this view, there *are* newer standards, like GDI or DirectDraw, and there were older non-PC standards, such as QuickDraw on the early Macs.

GDI and (as far as I know) QuickDraw aren't register-compatible, but that concept just doesn't apply to graphics cards anymore. Instead of talking to graphics cards directly, graphics cards produced in the GUI (Windows, Mac) era are expected to use custom drivers, and the last register-based standard they share is VBE. Instead, they describe standard OS-based contracts for communicating with graphics cards that can be implemented by the driver. So we could, perhaps, split this history into "early custom standards" e.g. home computer TV outputs, "register-compatible standards" e.g. CGA, and "high-level APIs" e.g. DirectDraw.

I propose the following: We rewrite Template:Computer_display_standard to something like this:

We then rewrite this page to describe this progression.

I see no inherent connection between video standards and resolution. VGA for instance supported resolutions that CGA supported, while adding its own capabilities, leaving no connection between e.g. 320x200 and CGA except that it was (perhaps) the earliest card to use that resolution, and even then people can simply go to the card's article and click on it there. To wit, does anyone particularly want to click the "6400×4800" link, and why wouldn't they do it from the "common resolutions" list? So we would lose those completely from the template and article.

I realize this is a big change, and I am willing to do all the initial work, but the template and this article have been maintained by many people for a long time and I want to invite comment and discussion before just doing it.Gravislizard (talk) 14:11, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, I suspect this page started out as an article about fully-specified video standards (which is why "color depth" is part of the table), but was edited by other people who didn't understand what is about, and ultimately just because a list of resolutions. Since the Graphics display resolution exists, this page is currently just a less well-maintained version of that, and should be reworked. GlenwingKyros (talk) 14:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm working on a draft of the main page to see how it might look. User:Gravislizard/sandbox/Display_Standards I'm concerned about how much of it may be WP:SYNTH unless I can find a book that addresses this subject directly.Gravislizard (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Computer repairing and maintaining

List any two video display standards? 103.98.130.216 (talk) 15:48, 29 January 2023 (UTC)