Albert Grennock wrote:
"Ken Weitzel" wrote in message
news:PoyXe.516091$5V4.39970@pd7tw3no...


Dave D wrote:

snip

Not conmen, this is the way it's done, by all manufacturers AFAIK. It
stemmed from the technical identification/part number of the CRTs as

they

come from the manufacturer. The diagonal size of the entire CRT formed

part

of the part number.

Some manufacturers might point this discrepency out, others may not.
Personally I feel it is a bad way to measure CRTs, and misleading, but
that's not the point. For a single manufacturer to change to actual

viewable

space measuring, they would have to sell larger CRTs than the

competition

for the same money, while few people would probably notice the 1" or so
increase.

It would be nice if all manufacturers could agree on the change, but it
won't likely happen now- CRTs are near the end of their life.

Hi...

The OP should try this incredibly simple test. Go and get an
8 x 10 enlargement made of his favorite photograph. Take it home,
measure it, and the piece pf paper will be virtually 8 inches by 10

inches.

Now get another made, this time have it mounted in a beautiful frame.
Take that one home, measure the visible portion of the paper.
Still 8 x 10? Or is some of it covered by the matte or the frame?



If you tried an arguement like that iin court you might escape imprisonment
one the grounds of diminished resposiblity. You would probably have to
cretified insane by a panel of doctor though.
Either way you aer going to locked up for a very long time.

Darn, I guess I'm going to jail for a very long time, then.

I'd never get away with pleading insanity, if for no other reason than
that I can spell in, on, responsibility, certified, and are. Heck, I
even know that a panel of doctor makes no sense. I would've said
panel of Doctors

None of my business, but if I may, wonder what country you're in?

Ken