Re: Nielsen's Rating

[Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- jci -dot- com]

Just got back from vacation:

>>Let's dispel the myth of the 72 dpi monitor right now. That's a dot pitch
>>of .35mm. Most monitors these days are .28mm or better, which is more
like
>>90 dpi. Flat-screen LCD monitors, rapidly replacing CRTs, go as high as
>
>ummm ... so what is the "exchange" rate of old monitors for new ones
>at major corporations? government agencies? universities? the places
>where _most_ computers exist?

Around here it varies (as we've almost cracked the top 100 on Fortune's
list, I suspect we qualify as a "major corporation"). One branch of the
company insists on replacing every pc in the division every three years. At
that branch *no* monitors of less than .28mm dot pitch can be found. In my
building, that policy is not in force, but the effect is the same: even our
5- and 7-year-old equipment doesn't have .35mm dot pitch. I'd be interested
if anyone could tell me of an instance of .35mm pitch monitors still in use
in their environment, seeing as how recommendations from as long ago as
*1995*
(http://www.zdnet.com/computershopper/edit/cshopper/features/hw2_0295/sub1.html

for those who want references) specified .28mm or better (the quoted
reference is for .26mm but that's merely a quibble).

>I won't argue that most new monitors have a smaller dot pitch than
>those sold five years ago -- but not all do. Nor have all 'old'
>monitors been replaced.

I'll accept that when you find me the make and model of one still in
corporate use. I'm a champion of old tech. I'm known for rescuing equipment
on the brink of retirement and forcing it to serve a few more years, and I
don't have a single monitor of less than .28mm dot pitch, even from
equipment purchased 10 years ago. The 72dpi monitor was born in 1984, when
Apple equated printer points with on-screen dpi in the first Mac. That was
17(!) years ago, and even *then* a lot of PC monitors were .28mm. 72dpi's
been a myth for nearly a decade by now, even at Apple.

Houston Business Journal, August 9 1996: "Most monitors have a dot pitch of
0.28 millimeters. A dot pitch of 0.25 or 0.26 is slightly better, while
anything over 0.30 is subpar." That's a comment from 5 years ago. Things
haven't changed much today, in the CRT world. (Which is why the CRT world
is caving in.)

>I also don't think the difference between 72 dpi and 90 dpi is _that_
>great when we are comparing it with 300dpi or better in *printed*
>matter.

When *does* it become relevant (after all, we're talking about a 40% gain
in resolution)? When monitors get to 130dpi? 180? 250? (Clue: these or
similar resolutions are all shipping today, from various sources, and some
have been shipping for quite some time now.)

As for some fonts looking better on paper than on screen: yes, but what's
that got to do with anything? I know fonts that look marvelous printed on
hard coated stock at 3600dpi which look bad when printed on high-rag
content paper on a 300dpi ink jet. Neither statement is relevant. If I'm
building an electronic document and I use a font which doesn't look good on
screen, it doesn't say diddly about the file format or the screen; it
merely says I'm incompentent. Bad design doesn't mean a bad file format. It
means a bad designer.

I'd be willing to bet those same bad screen fonts would look just as bad
when printed on an old 9-pin dot matrix printer as well. Let's be fair,
after all; old technology is old technology, doesn't matter if it's display
tech or printer tech. (And before you leap out at me over this, I should
probably tell you that in the same company which doesn't have any monitors
worse than .28mm dot pitch we have dot matrix printers still in productive
use.)

>Also - I'd love to see a citation where someone has this sort of
>information in a *documented* manner.

Check any list of monitors for sale and do the math. That includes auctions
of old equipment. Find me *one* instance of a .35mm monitor. Just one
(include make and model for verification). Even the obsolete equipment that
companies are getting rid of is generally better than .35mm dot pitch.

On the rise of LCDs: One computer company (Apple) no longer has *any*
CRT-based monitors in their product line (the only CRT left in the line is
the iMac, and rumor has it that changes with the next model release). Apple
generally leads the field by years in adoption of new technology (like USB
and FireWire) so it'll be a couple of years before we might expect
something similar from other manufacturers. Another one (Samsung) reported
a 47% increase in unit sales of LCDs in a PC market that is nearly flat.
Another (Phillips) saw unit shipments go up 21% in 2000, while it *lost*
market share, indicating the LCD market is growing faster than that, which
is considerably faster than the pc market as a whole. LCD monitor sales
were up in 2000 by 48% on a year over year basis. (From a DisplaySearch
press release, dated march of 2001)

Stanford Resources projects LCD monitors will grow at 27% compounded
annually for the next 4-6 years.

LCD monitors are generally above 100dpi, and 130 isn't uncommon. (How
uncommon can it be when even Dell sells one?)

But there's an unspoken issue: How many 72dpi monitors have to remain in
service to make them worth being concerned about? I know of someone who
still has Netscape 0.91; does that mean we can't use tables on our web
pages?

Truth is monitors now are nearing the quality of lasers from 15 years ago.
IBM is already shipping a monochrome LCD that's greater than 300dpi, with
medical equipment.

Have fun,
Arlen
Chief Managing Director In Charge, Department of Redundancy Department
DNRC 224

Arlen -dot- P -dot- Walker -at- JCI -dot- Com
----------------------------------------------
In God we trust; all others must provide data.
----------------------------------------------
Opinions expressed are mine and mine alone.
If JCI had an opinion on this, they'd hire someone else to deliver it.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

*** Deva(tm) Tools for Dreamweaver and Deva(tm) Search ***
Build Contents, Indexes, and Search for Web Sites and Help Systems
Available now at http://www.devahelp.com or info -at- devahelp -dot- com

TECH*COMM 2001 Conference, July 15-18 in Washington, DC
The Help Technology Conference, August 21-24 in Boston, MA
Details and online registration at http://www.SolutionsEvents.com


---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.