Originally posted by: ivan2
its a bit too risky to take a monitor this exotic to college isnt it... i've consider to replace my 17 inch samsung with a bigger monitor for sometimes but i just keep imagining that someone will just come in and steal it from my dorm.
Your faulted calculations prove your premise!Originally posted by: ActuaryTmApparently, mathematical skills are seldom taught (or understood) these days.
Based on a 18.1" diagonal of the 1801FP and the 20.1" diagonal of the 2001FP, the actual difference in square inches is 36.672 (193.9248 in^2 [2001FP] - 157.2528 in^2 [1801FP]) . John was least incorrect, as there is a 2" difference in diagonal measurement, of course.
Another "mathematical skills challenged" and "intellect challenged" smarta$$ bites the dust!Proof that size does indeed matter - in so far as intellect is concerned, at least.
Originally posted by: John
Originally posted by: atac
muuussssttttt rrrrrrreeeeesssiiiiittttt........
Yes, I agree. My 1800FP's are still holding me over quite well, and I cannot justify $700.00 for another 2" of screen real estate.
Originally posted by: JPSJPS
Your faulted calculations prove your premise!Originally posted by: ActuaryTmApparently, mathematical skills are seldom taught (or understood) these days.
Based on a 18.1" diagonal of the 1801FP and the 20.1" diagonal of the 2001FP, the actual difference in square inches is 36.672 (193.9248 in^2 [2001FP] - 157.2528 in^2 [1801FP]) . John was least incorrect, as there is a 2" difference in diagonal measurement, of course.
If you are gonna be an effective wise guy you otta get it right.
The 20.1" monitor is 1600X1200 which is a width to height ratio 1.333...
You used this ratio for *BOTH* monitor area calculations.
However, the 18.1" monitor is 1280X1024 which is width to height ratio *1.25*
Thus, 18.1" monitor area is about 159.81 so your final answer is off by about 2in^2!!!!
Not much unless you are trying to demonstrate your superior intellect.
BTW this is grade school stuff.
Another "mathematical skills challenged" and "intellect challenged" smarta$$ bites the dust!Proof that size does indeed matter - in so far as intellect is concerned, at least.
Did not have the actual display dimensions handy, but appears the estimate offered earlier is off by 1.192 square inches (approximately 3% error), which does not appear to be close to 2 square inches. This was due to assuming a standard 4:3 aspect ratio relationship for the display area, for the sake of a quick and dirty calculation working backwards from Pythagoras, coupled with a simple ratio. Unfortunately, the premise JPSJPS offers is flawed in theory, as the actual dimensions are not governed by pixels (ie, the 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 may itself be stretched) but rather the display area itself.Originally posted by: Apex
The 2001fp has a viewable 16.1" width and 12.1" height, giving you 194.81 square inches.
The 1801fp has a viewable 14.1" width and 11.3" height, giving you 159.33 square inches.
The 2001fp gives you 35.48 square inches of additional screen realestate
Personally, I think much of the reason to upgrade to the 2001FP is the resolution, not the size. I found that I get work done faster at 1600x1200 than at 1280x1024. The upgrade really paid for itself quickly, and now I'm at 1920x1200.
Originally posted by: amheck
Personally, I think much of the reason to upgrade to the 2001FP is the resolution, not the size. I found that I get work done faster at 1600x1200 than at 1280x1024. The upgrade really paid for itself quickly, and now I'm at 1920x1200.
I don't know how you guys do it - heck, maybe I'm doing something wrong. I put my IBM 21" flat CRT to 1600x1200 and everything is so damn small. I don't know if I could even deal with the Dell LCD running at 1600x1200 all of the time.
Maybe it's something you get used to?
Aaron
Originally posted by: ActuaryTm
Originally posted by: Apex
The 2001fp has a viewable 16.1" width and 12.1" height, giving you 194.81 square inches.
The 1801fp has a viewable 14.1" width and 11.3" height, giving you 159.33 square inches.
The 2001fp gives you 35.48 square inches of additional screen realestate
Baloney! Apex is quoting the rounded numbers from the Dell Spec and there is nothing wrong with that although he should have not have implied 2 place accuracy from 1 place input. I copied *your* calculation method exactly to 4 decimal places and the difference is over 2 in^2 using your method.Did not have the actual display dimensions handy, but appears the estimate offered earlier is off by 1.192 square inches (approximately 3% error), which does not appear to be close to 2 square inches. This was due to assuming a standard 4:3 aspect ratio relationship for the display area, for the sake of a quick and dirty calculation working backwards from Pythagoras, coupled with a simple ratio.
I have never seen a digital monitor where the X or Y dimensions are stretched, but I accept that is NOT conclusive proof. Modern displays that are suitable for CAD use have to be accurately scaled the same in both the vertical and horizontal direction. Else, 3D scaling and rotated drawings' differences would be obvious. Analog displays generally can/do have this problem though.Unfortunately, the premise JPSJPS offers is flawed in theory, as the actual dimensions are not governed by pixels (ie, the 1600x1200 or 1280x1024 may itself be stretched) but rather the display area itself.
If you had done an estimate or approximate area calculation without throwing in an the insult then I would not have replied. But you carried the answers to 4 decimal places and threw in an insult as well.Given the answers prior (4 square inches, 324 square inches, etc), thought it best to offer at the very least a better estimation. Actuaries unfortunately live with percentage errors a great deal (would kill for 3% at times) - in fact, there is a humorous adage used throughout my profession that states, "an actuary is someone who would rather be precisely wrong rather than approximately right."
You started pointing out disparities and did it incorrectly and not so politely yourself. Else, I would not have responded. You portrayed yourself as an expert then blew it while admonishing others. The pot can not call the kettle black!Regardless, thank you for pointing out this disparity, and so politely so.
The results from the calculations were copied directly from the medium in which they were performed: a spreadsheet. The default decimal place count (note: not accuracy) was thus carried over. But then, am certain you already knew that as well. I am certainly quite guilty of being lazy in this regard.Originally posted by: JPSJPS
If you had done an estimate or approximate area calculation without throwing in an the insult then I would not have replied. But you carried the answers to 4 decimal places and threw in an insult as well.
No competent mathematician is gonna mix assumptions (4:3) with 4 decimal accuracy.
You can't have it both ways!