Engadget, you cease to be a source of tech info when your terminology degrades into crap like "WXGA or WSXGA+".
This *GA alphabet soup died in the '90s, thankfully. Why start a new generation of meaningless drivel, and in the process REMOVE information from your stories? Tell us the damned resolution IN NUMBERS. How many characters are you saving by writing "WSXGA+" instead of NNNNxNNNN? In case you can't count: THREE. Three characters saved, and readers not served.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Information Central @ May 4th 2007 5:33PM
Engadget, you cease to be a source of tech info when your terminology degrades into crap like "WXGA or WSXGA+".
This *GA alphabet soup died in the '90s, thankfully. Why start a new generation of meaningless drivel, and in the process REMOVE information from your stories? Tell us the damned resolution IN NUMBERS. How many characters are you saving by writing "WSXGA+" instead of NNNNxNNNN? In case you can't count: THREE. Three characters saved, and readers not served.
Nice work.
Ondra Soukup @ May 6th 2007 4:49AM
You know what ? It's commonly used. Really really common. If you don't know it, google it ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WSXGA+
Information Central @ May 8th 2007 7:24PM
Um, no. First of all, there's no agreement on what this crap means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide_XGA
Second, there's no excuse for deliberately wasting readers' time and reducing the clarity of written communication.
So again, why use this garbage, when it only saves three characters, and does not even provide accurate information?