Digital BW, The Print

Roy,

<snip>

> > I have no problem with calling it "pixels", as it is
> pixels...but the point
> > is, it's not called pixels.  It's a misuse of the term
> "resolution" to say a
> > monitor has a resolution of 1280 x 1024, as no spatial dimension (well,
> > except "per monitor", which isn't really a very useful unit of measure,
>
> I don't know what you mean by "useful", it seems to me to be about the
> most important spec to tell you how must stuff you will be able to put on
> the screen.

Sigh.  I said "useful UNIT OF MEASURE" not that the number wasn't "useful".
When comparing that number to ANOTHER monitor with the same resolution, it
give you NO information on how "big" the monitor is, you need "a"
measurement of monitor size.

> My main point is pragmatic and illustrative, we all know and agree what it
> means, so let's get beyond any labeling of it as correct use or misuse.

I know that, and I pointed that out when I first brought the misuse of the
term "resolution" into the conversation, but I take it you don't get why I
brought it up in the first place.

Austin