I think most of us are used to seeing computer screens (and TV screens, for that matter) at a certain aspect ratio. Anything other than what we're used to isn't "normal". Recently many people have jumped on the DVD wagon, and all the headaches and new terminology that it involves (letterbox, widescreen, aspect ratio, anamorphic, full screen, 4x3, 16x9, 1.78:1, 1.85:1, 2.35:1, etc.) What many people have missed, however, is the issue of non-standard screen resolutions on computers. A "normal" (industry-standard, on the majority of consumer's computers) screen resolution has an aspect ratio of 4:3, which simply means that the screen width is 1.3333 times the height at any given resolution (4/3 = 1.3333). Some common resolutions that you're probably already familiar with include:320x240 (Pocket PCs; also the size of most streaming videos)
640x480 (the smallest of the "average screen")
800x600 (the undisputed choice on most users' screens)All of the preceeding sizes are the same 4-to-3 aspect ratio (do the math: 800/600 = 4/3 = 1.3333). The problem is once you start to foray into the more advanced (higher) screen resolutions, an inconsistency creeps in and starts to confuse people. Take a look at the following list of typical choices found on many advanced video cards:640x480 (4:3 = 1.3333)
800x600 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1024x768 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1152x864 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1280x960 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1280x1024 (5:4 = 1.25)
1400x1050 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1600x1200 (4:3 = 1.3333)
1920x1440 (4:3 = 1.3333)
2048x1536 (4:3 = 1.3333)Notice the problem? The problem is that 1280x1024, while a common screen resolution among advanced users, isn't the correct aspect ratio. So what does this mean? It means that if you choose 5:4 as an aspect ratio, everything you view on your screen will be "squished" or "stretched" (depending on how you think). Images will be too tall and not wide enough. People will look unnatural, like the tall water aliens on Star Wars Episode II. Of course, any astute person upon trying 1280x1024 would have to notice the problem straight away and quickly switch back to 1280x960. That, of course, is the whole point of this observation. Any 1280x1024 user reading this should switch, immediately! Only compounding the problem is the fact that many wallpaper creators seem to misunderstand this whole concept, and mistakenly provide their wallpapers at this incorrect resolution. They really ought to choose 1280x960 instead. In the near future I'm going to start offering my own wallpapers, and I'll make things right.   =)

Here are some more non-standard aspect ratio resolutions:848x480 ( = 1.767)
1280x720 ( = 1.778)
1280x768 ( = 1.667)
1600x900 ( = 1.778)
1600x1024 ( = 1.563)
1920x1080 ( = 1.778)
1920x1200 ( = 1.600)
1265x1024 ( = 1.235)If you're using any of the above, once again please note that they are not standard aspect ratios and hence images will appear distorted.

So which screen resolution do I choose? The only logical choice, of course. (I have a 19" monitor.) Assuming you have normal eyesight (with or without the aid of eyeglasses), there is only one "best" choice for each size of monitor. The choices are:14" monitor = 640x480
15" monitor = 800x600
17" monitor = 1024x768
19" monitor = 1280x960
21" monitor = 1600x1200
23" monitor = 1920x1440
25" monitor = 2048x1536If you're the proud user of anything larger than that, I can't offer any suggestions. No one I know uses a monitor that big. (Televisions don't count.)

You may have noticed that I have purposefully left out some common Macintosh resolutions so far. Apple, in true fashion, had to try something different (different isn't necessarily better). Thus, the screen resolutions on some Macs include choices such as:512x342 ( = 1.4971)
576x720 ( = 0.8)
640x400 ( = 1.6)
832x624 ( = 1.3333)
1056x792 ( = 1.3333)
1152x870 ( = 1.3241)What we they thinking? Most of these aren't standard aspect ratios! I was glad to see that in the later incarnations (iMacs, OS 9 and X), they've conformed to the more "standard" choices that the majority of us use.

On a different note, I must say that the new Windows XP Tablet PCs are pretty cool. Handwriting and voice recognition both still suck (no surprise), but overall these machines are still pretty cool. The three (3) I'm testing are all Motion Computing M1200's (they're slow - 866 MHz), but they're nifty. Here's what could be improved upon, however:the things run hot (back panel hot to the touch)
no contrast control
no handle
batteries don't last very long
only runs at 400 MHz on battery (only 200 MHz with power-saving "features" enabled)
only runs af full-rated speed (866 MHz) when plugged-in
they're still a little too heavy
can't see them outside - need anti-glare screens
the Tablet Pool game has a bad lag when played over even a fast (100 Mbps) network
the pen/orientation calibrations don't seem to stick - and they aren't very accurate eitherI do love, however, Windows JournalTM and all it's built-in templates. I do like the Write Anywhere feature, and how you can change screen orientations on the fly. I love the "MS Tablet Pool" game (although I suck at it). I also love the fact that Journal will import a PDF almost perfectly, and then (of course) allow you to write in it, highlight it, print it out, etc. Pure brilliance!

I absolutely love Blue Diamond's Chocolate "Almond Breeze", a non-dairy beverage made from real almonds. It has no lactose, only 1% fat, and is cholesterol free. Mmmmmm. Today I jumped into the Number 4 slot on our Seti team. Muahahaha.