English may be imprecise but your meaning wasn't. Although the error in this case was small because the relative sizes are small, your calculation method produces results most would consider absurd when relative sizes are larger.

Suppose Walter's setup had:

- 2x as many pixels as yours - you say his is 50% larger than yours (rather than 100%)
- 10x as many pixels as yours - you say his is 90% larger than yours (rather than 900%)

Even if Walter's setup covered the surface of the planet it would not reach even 100% larger than yours, according to your formula.

Fabio's method is common usage.

>Al,
>
>% bigger than mine can be expressed relative to his or mine. English is imprecise. The mathematical expression I posted is non-ambiguous and that is why I posted it.
>
>FWIW, I'm done arguing about this whole tangential 1.8% issue. It's hardly relevant to David S's dockability issue.
>
>>While you can use either value as the denominator, you specifically said in your earlier message that Walter's setup was X% larger than yours. Therefore it's clear your Dell's size should be the denominator, and Fabio's calculation is correct.