|Helpful is giving an educated opinion. Arrogance is calling that perspective "proper". IMHO.
You are correct sir, I should know better than to use a term like "proper," it could set off someone like you who's just itching for a fight where there wasn't one before.
|BTW, 1.92 million pixels is not a measure of the "amount of information on the screen". It is a measure of resolution.
Argh... didn't I say I had no interest in having this devolve into an argument over semantics? I know
what resolution is. And you should know that a pixel is in fact
a unit of information. I'm not talking about data as in numbers, pictures, pie charts, etc, I'm talking about actual information... all that is ACTUALLY on your screen is 1600 by 1200 pixels, that's it. There is no 'data' on your screen other than the pixels. The information actually displayed on your screen (the pixels) only represent
the data that we are interested in. The information we gain from the screen comes together in our heads. On the screen there is only a certain number of pixels of varying brightness and color. But you and I and everyone else already know all this. So, as I asked before, can we just drop this silly little part of the discussion, it really doesn't add anything of value to the issue at hand.
I think everyone knew very well what I meant. It's pretty arrogant of you
to assume that these simple statements I am making are misleading anyone here, and you need to rush in and save the stupid among us.
So, to clear everything up in a way you seem to feel I should:
Yes, it is my opinion
that the screen size is not that
important. It is my opinion
that the size is less important than the quality of the screen, especially when considering the small change between a 15" vs. a 16". Anyone can choose whichever they want, and I have only stated my opinion
in the matter. I don't think anyone here is stupid enough to think I am some sort of all-knowing god, and will follow every bit of what is obviously my opinion as if it were incontrovertible fact.