Talk:Computer display standard

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.

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.

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)