>=20 > On 2015m05d20, at 0:08, James Cameron wrote: >=20 > On Tue, May 19, 2015 at 11:49:50PM -0600, NOPE9 YES wrote: >> I am sorry =85. I don=92t get it =85.. how is a tablet an answer ? They >> are 3-4 times as expensive as a heavy computer monitor. >=20 > Ah, that's a new requirement. You're right. A $50 tablet can be > quite expensive. Stick with the heavy monitor then? >=20 I get it=85. my requirements were vague. Here is my attempt to improve my requirements. I want a display that is around 13 to 20 inches diagonal. I prefer 20 inch= es. I want it to weigh as little as possible. ( Under 6 lbs is terrific )=20 I do not require a stand. If it has a stand, I will toss it and the weight. Question: When a display is specified to weigh xx pounds =85. does tha= t include the weight of the stand ? The thinner the display, the better. 1280 by 800 px or better would be nice= .. Cost under $120 USD would be nice. Best =85. Gus in Denver --=20 James Cameron http://quozl.linux.org.au/ --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist --=20 http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .