Comment 39 for bug 188792

> Well everybody used 1280x1024, but I'm not too sure that the monitors were
> really 5:4. I've got a 19" CRT here for instance which clearly is 4:3, and
> there were lots of similar monitors around that time. And especially the
> cheaper ones, while they could run 1600x1200, it was unusable due to fuzziness
> and restriction to 60Hz, so everybody just used 1280x1024 on them. But you may
> be right some might indeed have been 5:4.
Yes, as I said, I measured it.

>Anyway, even if the monitor in
> question here really is 5:4 physically, there's nothing in the edid data which
> would indicate this - in fact edid just shows it's 4:3. So there's absolutely
> nothing the driver could do to figure out it should indeed chose a 5:4
> resolution by default.

Keep a database of accurate EDIDs to use for all known monitors.
I thought you guy already did something like this. I was always under
the impression that monitor EDIDs in general have never been accurate
at all, this reaffirms that.