Jump to content

Talk:Computer monitor/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

Is Flat Panel Display FPD?

"Display device which produces an image on the screen." Hmm. A paintbrush is therefore sometimes a computer monitor?

C'mon, everyone will be able to understand what "computer monitor" means before they understand this definition.  :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larry Sanger (talk • contribs) 19:29, 2 April 2001 (UTC)


original page : http://www.answers.com/topic/computer-display-1

Full Visible Spectrum

Monitors that are in development that can show the full visible spectrum, not just by mixing red, blue and green.

Hood

Some monitors have a hood to filter out ambient light.

Rubbish pic

I find the rubbish pic excessively POV as it looks like dumped e-waste and implies that e-waste is generally just dumped on pavements, etc, rather than being responsibly tidied after. That is an inaccurate portrayal of the reality of e-waste, SqueakBox 15:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Screen size/dimensions

I was redirected here from Screen size but I find no mention of how screen size is determined/measured. For instance, what are the dimensions of a 19" monitor? What if the monitor is 16:9 aspect ratio? Where is this measured from (diagonal?)? Who came up with these (north american?) standards?

66.253.36.215 06:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Unhiding of full monitor capabilities

This driver: http://www.videoi.com/~pietro/monitor/ (davemon.inf)

after matching following requirements:

  • untick PNP monitor detection
  • install non-OEM ForceWare from NVIDIA site

permits to use hidden resolutions of certain monitors, for example 1920x1080 resolution on monitor that officially is capable only up to 1280x1024 resolution. 83.5.61.74 16:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible addition to problems

When my monitor is on for a long period of time and displays bright colors, it makes a somewhat fait but still annoying high pitch. Anyone know what this is? It could be added to problems if it is common enough.

This happens to me on my 15+ year old CRT TV, the loudness and pitch of the whine vary, and it can get pretty loud. Dood77 23:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Ah yes, exacerbated by nearly out of range modes on computer monitors (very high or low refresh rates,) I myself find the substantial application of kinetic excitation to be most efficacious in such situations. If somebody feels like reading up on it, they should certainly add it, I think it has something to do with the power supply.

military aircraft

Might want to remove that con from the Penetron part of the article, "Generally only found in military aircraft.", doesn't sound like much of a con, more of a general comment. Its like saying that beds are only found in bedrooms is a con. 212.30.218.14 (talk) 01:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing resolutions

Why can CRT computer monitors display different resolutions, how do they do this? The picture quality changes when you change the resolution, how come?

Because CRTs operate like electronic movie projectors, they have no idea of where the little glowy phosphor dots are, you can even squash and stretch the image all over the screen using a CRT's built-in geometry controls (don't worry, you won't hurt it.) By contrast, liquid crystal and plasma displays operate more like a whole bunch of flashlights, each subpixel is an actual device, and obviously can't move itself around. For more details (and if somebody wants to write at length about this,) please see the cathode ray tube article. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Misc

  • Some computer displays have a small built-in speaker.
  • No mention of TCO Certification.
  • No mention of some displays have USB.
  • No mention of Plug-and-play.
  • No mention of DDC thingymabob.
I added speakers and hubs. Since I'm a Mac user, I have no idea of what that other junk is. :-) 76.126.134.152 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

linux bias?

Not that I'm anti-linux or anything, but this article makes frequent reference to the X window system, and even goes as far as to say a specific variable under X11. (look under the virtual displays section) I think mention of other OS interfaces for dual monitor, etc. should be mentioned. Dood77 23:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Fixed, with tons of Mac screenshots of course. ;-) 76.126.134.152 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

rename to "Visual Display Unit"?

I think the current document title is too specific, and that rather than VDU redirect here (as it currently does), "Computer Display" should instead redirect to VDU, because computer display is a subset of VDU, whereas VDU is not a subset of Computer Display. Comments please? --Rebroad (talk) 20:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Strongly disagree, see above. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Article name

I think http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_monitor should be brought into this article, rather than being seperate. -Greenlead

Most people still call them monitors; maybe the redirect should be in the other direction.

I actually think that the main article should be visual display unit. It needs a great deal of expansion too. violet/riga (t) 19:38, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikipedia naming conventions disagree. We should use the most common term, which is probably "computer monitor". And, if appropriate, note the correct or most common technical term(s), which may be VDU. Rd232 16:45, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Being immersed in the IT world I usually here it called a monitor, though obviously we can't just call it that here because monitor is taken. While computer monitor may be better I can't think of any time I've heard that. Visual display unit is still what's taught in schools, though I believe it's referred to as a "monitor" in manuals. I reckon either of those two would be better than the current title. violet/riga (t) 17:08, 15 Jan 2006 (UTC)

Violet, I am not convinced. Please supply better proof. 216.153.214.94 03:51, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Violetriga, this is part of a string of bad-faith edits by Rex. I am adding this latest misconduct to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rex071404/Evidence. JamesMLane 05:44, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please disregard JamesMLane's conjecture based assertion. His edits as of late indicate he's misunderstanding certain basic facts. Also, he continually refers to "Rex" for some weird reason. 216.153.214.94 05:34, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've re-added the paragraph discussing the different terms (monitor, display, VDU, etc) as it is very informative, and has not been superceded. Brother Dysk 13:08, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with renaming this article. 'Visual display unit' sounds like a technical term, and Wikipedia guidelines says to use the common name. Part of the reason for the guideline, as I understand it, is to cut down on redirects. Most people will use 'computer display' or 'computer monitor' when looking for the article because that's what they are commonly called. —Mike 05:27, Jan 18, 2005 (UTC)

VDU doesn't sound like a technical term, it sounds like a practical joke. It joins a long line of other stupidly redundant terms like JBOD and POTS. As none of the other items in Monitor are anywhere near as often used, I suggest that Monitor be moved to Monitor (disambiguation) and Visual display unit be moved to Monitor. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think this article should be called "computer monitor" or "computer display", to use the most common unambiguous term, and to make it clear that television sets are out of scope. -- Beland (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
Why “computer monitor” instead of “monitor”? Should Chocolate be moved to Bar chocolate and Chocolate (disambiguation) go to Chocolate? No, that would be incredibly stupid, because nobody calls it bar chocolate anymore, and people are expecting to find an article about bar chocolate at Chocolate, duh. Nearly all of the uses of “monitor” refer to the device you're reading this with, having Monitor itself be a disambiguation page to obscure junk with <1% of the references in the wiki and putting monitors at VDU is counterintuitive to the point of inanity. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 05:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The image Image:Spaces.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:32, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

old discussion: Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Visual display unit → Monitor (video)
Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. "Monitor" is taken (with a dab page), and "Computer monitor" is too specific, since video monitors are also included. The right solution is therefore something like Monitor (video), or Monitor (display). If there are no objections, I'll move the article to Monitor (video). Srleffler (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC) See new section, below.--Srleffler (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
What is the rationale for changing it? Hohum (talk) 16:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
As noted above, the rationale is Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use the most easily recognized name. "Visual display unit" is not a commonly-used term for this device. "Monitor" is far more easily recognized. If Monitor were available, I would have simply moved the article there without discussion. Since it is not, we need consensus on the best name to which to move the article.--Srleffler (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Oops. I should have looked for that first. That changes everything. See below.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

old discussion: move and/or merge article

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was article moved. —harej (talk) 01:46, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Visual display unit → Computer monitor — As pointed out above, there is already an article on video monitors. --Srleffler (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

This leaves us with a choice between two clear options:

  1. Merge this article with Video monitor, or
  2. Make this article particular to computer monitors, and rename/move it to Computer monitor.

I prefer the second of these options, and I withdraw my proposal above.--Srleffler (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Flexible display section.

The section seems to be a very slightly edited version of a press release [1]. Is there any evidence to suggest it is public domain? It's not encyclopedic style anyway. Hohum (talk) 18:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I initially imagined that this section might be rewritten to discuss flexible displays in general, but after some thought I came to the conclusion that none or virtually none have seen actual public sale. Similarly, the specific company mentioned in that is basing its displays on OLEDs, a technology that has itself produced little or nothing in terms of buyable results as of yet.
Given this reasoning, until they establish a substantial presence or niche in the marketplace, I don't think any new technologies should be added to or mentioned in the article. 72.235.10.142 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

History.

I was hoping to find a little info on the evolution of computer monitors, but there's no history at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.118.100 (talk) 09:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The interfaces section is something of a historical account, but I suppose a proper history section might make sense. 72.235.10.142 (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

LCDs are rugged?

Punch a LCD, the screen is likely screwed up forever. Punch a CRT, your hand will likely get hurt from having done so. If I misunderstood what was meant by LCDs being "rugged" as one of their pros, and I'm also rather unfamiliar with today's LCDs, please explain. 75.71.202.125 (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

A lot depends on the type of violence - a sharp hard strike with a hammer to the screen of a CRT will likely destroy it, on an LCD it will probably cause a local blemish. If you kneel on the face of an LCD it will probably cause severe and permanent display issues, while a CRT would be unaffected.
However, wikipedia needs references, not our anecdotal experience. (Hohum @) 21:34, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

DLP?

No mention of DLP monitors here, maybe add link to Comparison_of_display_technology.--Enumerate109 (talk) 23:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Cost

From the 'pros' of CRTs: "Usually much cheaper than LCD or Plasma screens." - is this true any more? Can you even buy new CRT monitors? Pjc51 (talk) 18:31, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it would be better to reference technology instead of actual monitors. The price of monitors depends also on quality level, extra features and market share, which all should be out of scope for a general comparison. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Computer monitor radiation and standards

No mention of this? This article could still be expanded to include this information. -- Ϫ 21:13, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

CRT con

I don't know if “Generates a considerable amount of heat when running” really should be listed as a con for CRT, I've no radiators in my room and no space for one on the floor, the only thing warming up my room is two CRT-monitors, so for me it is a plus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.150.222.25 (talk) 00:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

wireless monitors?

someone tell me, do wireless high definition monitors already exist? I mean the kind of monitor that don't have to be conncted to the computer with HDMi, DVI or any other type of cables to work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.145.91 (talk) 18:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Display device

There has been a merge suggestion box on the article page, but without any reasoning or even a subsection on this page. So here it is now. The suggestion is a merge with Display device -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am strongly against the merge proposition: Both things are different, and both things are big enough to have their own article. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe that computer monitors are different enough or at least complicated enough that they should be no more than referenced to in the display device section. -- 26 APRIL 2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.19.14 (talk) 23:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup?

Hello, is it only me that feel that the article isnt so good? And that it could be of higher standard and need a cleanup?

Hi Anonymous, I agree this definitely needs clean-up. Not well-structured overall, not well written in some parts. I don't know where to start with...Poisonotter 07:27, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I've done some minor cleanup, but I've gotta admit it still looks incredibly messy.
I have done alot clean up /QAQUAU (talk) 15:04, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
I have continued the clean up and have some drastic deletes of unsources material simply because the article was just messy./QAQUAU (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Plasma Monitors?

I've never seen a plasma display used as a computer monitor. Has anyone else see it used? Reub2000 09:03, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Some early Apple CinemaVision displays are plasma screen. Brother Dysk 11:36, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think it should then be noted in the article that plasma is very rarely used in computer monitors or maybe even removed. And I think it should also be noted that projectors are usually used for showing something to a group, and very rarely for personal use. Reub2000 13:30, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
“Apple CinemaVision display”!? Heh, there is no such thing. Plasma displays WERE however commonly used with computers in the 1950s-1980s. Remember those reddish-looking brightly glowing flat panel displays hooked up to mainframes all the time? Those were plasma displays. Since nobody knew how to make blue with plasma displays yet (sound familiar?), they tended to be red-orange-yellow monochrome with a black background. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 10:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
The PLATO used plasma monitors in the 1970s, which was one of the first gaphical display access timesharing systems. But yes, history like this needs to be added. W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

History

What is the history of this technology? Which came first, television sets or computer monitors? -- Beland (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the first electronic computers were built in the 1940s and the first video devices were made in the late 1920s, I would imagine television came first. 76.126.134.152 (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to find out who first typed characters and saw them appear on a VDU screen. As the history section is non-existent, I'm none the wiser... 92.3.16.22 (talk) 00:30, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Well even before one typed characters displays were used. Oscilloscopes were a common tool of engineers in the 1940s. The Manchester Small-Scale Experimental Machine had visual output, arguably the first electronic stored-program built in 1948. Yes, this needs to be added with sources some day. Now what is a "VDU"? I never heard that term. Perhaps this is a Britsh/American usage issue? W Nowicki (talk) 18:55, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

When did the aspect ratio change? When was the first 16:9 monitor marketed?

Can someone answer this question because I want to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.81.134.236 (talk) 08:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing vertical screen picture.

Can somebody upload any picture to illustrate the vertical/rotative screen existence? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.199.89.101 (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Color Depth

There should be some mention of Color Depth from the Wiki article of the same name. The evolution from 2-bit color to True Color is significant. Color Depth is a key measure of performance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.99.97.132 (talk) 14:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Picture in the lead section

Why isn't there a picture of a monitor in the lead section? —andrybak (talk) 19:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why but I will add two from Wikimedia Commons to fix that oversize. --2601:644:400:8D:4572:EE22:DCC8:4212 (talk) 06:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Computer monitor. 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:

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) 21:12, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

whats monitor

A computer monitor is an output device which displays information in pictorial form. A monitor usually comprises the display device, circuitry, casing, and power supply. The display device in modern monitors is typically a thin film transistor liquid crystal display (TFT-LCD) with LED backlighting having replaced cold-cathode fluorescent lamp (CCFL) backlighting. Older monitors used a cathode ray tube (CRT). Monitors are connected to the computer via VGA, Digital Visual Interface (DVI), HDMI, DisplayPort, Thunderbolt, low-voltage differential signaling (LVDS) or other proprietary connectors and signals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.164.1.158 (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

IBM CGA

The article says:

"Lagging several years behind, IBM introduced the Color Graphics Adapter in 1981." This was actuallly as soon as they could - the CGA was intended for the IBM PC, which was only launched in 1981 and did not come with any integrated graphics. Skloo (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Info on interlacing missing

One important fact about monitors is that they had to be non-interlaced in order to prevent eye strain. They began as text-only and had to be read. A section on that development needs to be included. Thetrellan (talk) 17:40, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

VDU vs monitor

Is this really the case, that "VDU" is simply an old term for "monitor"? I would have thought a monitor to be just one kind of VDU, whereas others might include:

  • built-in screens on some kinds of computers (classically luggables, Commodore PET, Amstrad PCW and others; in more modern times iMacs, all-in-one PCs, laptops, tablets and smartphones)
  • television sets (via RF or HDMI output)
  • video projectors

Are these not VDUs? — Smjg (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

History and Technology reorganization

It seems the Technology includes a lot of information that would be better served in the History section. The history section is fairly brief, it would be worthwhile to reorganize.

RunningToMars (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Military Command Centers

The military used display monitors in their command centers in the 1950's. They were very expensive, but necessary. The same for the RADAR displays in the 1940's.

Philo Farnsworth had a working TV in 1929. 97.116.97.245 (talk) 20:34, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Static monitors

I don't know about military command centers as they may have either ships with many monitors and the whole thing to move on the waves, .... while brousing, but most computer monitors are static. But writing this I thought the commandment may have waving computers like right now and got nausea hahaha. --Studierendj5236 (talk) 11:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Computer_monitor/Archive_1&oldid=1167305568"