** "homer" creeps around with ruler, measuring every LCD monitor he can find **
Hey, you're right!! Well, I guess I learned something. I'm still not convinced that's the case for all 1280x1024 LCD monitors, throughout time. I'm pretty sure I once actually measured a 17" at 4:3, but I can't check that, right now. But, I'll certainly accept that's true of all current models.
I'm a little happier that these LCD monitors have square pixels... but the problem with this approach is that lots of games and video playback software have fullscreen modes that assume a 4:3 monitor aspect ratio.
I guess the best thing to do (if you're a monitor mfg and even use that resolution, in the first place) is to prioritize square pixels. Lots of developers are too lazy to support non-square pixels, since that can be a lot of work. It's the windowing system's job to provide an interface for finding out the screen aspect ratio - and with widescreen monitors gaining popularity (with aspect ratios like 16:9, 16:10, and 5:3), developers pretty much have to query that.
Well, the situation should improve as windowing systems move to embrace 3D & vector display technologies, leaving pure raster systems in the dust.
Relax. If HamaZ feels bad about this, it should be embarrassment from making the case so authoritatively, in spite of being quite wrong - not from harsh criticism (which may leave HamaZ feeling defensive, instead of reflective). If we don't at least help HamaZ understand the errors, this thread will have been a complete (if insignificant) waste of time and energy.
The point about the tone of this whole thread is a good one. To start out as a seemingly innocent question, such as seeking advice or understanding, and then turn around and start bragging that many people are wrong is just poor manners. I would have never replied, had I known this thread wasn't started out of genuine curiosity.