Although I appreciate the information your January Lab Report on monitors provides, I have a few complaints. The first is about the ``quality index'' rating. Out of the 44 17-inch monitors, 33 of them received an ``Excellent'' rating and the remaining 11 received a ``Good'' rating. You might as well have had only two categories: ``good'' and ``not as good.''
This overall rating system was particularly bothersome to me because I value image sharpness and image quality far more than I value snazzy features, power consumption, and the like. Second, if you had provided the raw scores for image sharpness, distortion, and legibility, readers could have constructed their own ratings. Finally, I wish you had included more capsule summaries about the various monitors.
Steve Rinn
Campbell, CA
srinn@halcyon.com
Flexible C++
Matthew Wilson
My approach to software engineering is far more pragmatic than it
is
theoretical--and no language better exemplifies this than C++.
BYTE Digest editors every month analyze and evaluate the best articles from Information Week, EE Times, Dr. Dobb's Journal, Network Computing, Sys Admin,
and dozens of other CMP publications—bringing
you critical news and information about wireless communication,
computer security, software development, embedded systems,
and more!
Big-Screen Monitors
