If its a 17" monitor, why does no dimension ever really equal 17"? Where did the convention come from to name a monitor by a dimension that is smaller than its screen, larger than its horizontal footprint, and smaller than its diagonal footprint?
It's loser to the viewable than it used to be. There was a huge class action legal dealio with all the users that were a bit more anal then others. They asked this same questioned and ulitmiately won their suit. Calling it a generally a 17" monitor is still easier than calling it '16.85" viewable image area' monitor any day of the week...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.