Talk:Computer monitor

Computing B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

See also: talk:Computer Monitor

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

I think http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_monitor&ei=gfYQQ4W7M6-MaNqpibcK 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, 14 Jan 2005 (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the paragraph discussing the different terms (monitor, display, VDU, etc) as it is very informative, and has not been superceded.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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I've done some minor cleanup, but I've gotta admit it still looks incredibly messy.

• 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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Some monitors have a hood to filter out ambient light.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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