I just hate the way they figure the new measurements now...
New measurements, now? The viewable diagonal has been the standard for decades (for TVs and LCD monitors). The problem is all the different ratios monitors now come in, making a 22" TV widescren the same size (in area) as a 21.45" 16:10 computer widescreen:
"size" viewable diagonal | screen ratio | viewable area sq inches |
22" | 16:9 | 206.81 |
21.45 | 16:10 | 206.79 |
20.75 | 4:3 | 206.67 |
20.6 | 5:4 | 207.00 |
When you're comparing screens with the same ratio, diagonal is fine. When comparing across different ratios, though, diagonals is not the best way, IMO. I'm not saying area is the best way to state the size. I sort of like digital camera's pixal count way, as they too come in multiple ratios: 4:3, 3:2 and 16:9. But people would then realize they are losing pixels when "upgrading" from a 19" 1280x1024 (5:4) to a 1440x900 (16:10) monitor. Manufacturers don't like that.

Not that area and pixel count are the way screens should be sized. But area & pixel count are things consumers should be aware of. With diagonal and ratio, area can be calculated, and with the usually stated resolution the pixel count can be calculated, so.... As long as people are aware of the ratios and know how to calculate the area & pixel count, diagonals are probably as good (and bad) as any other way to state "size".