Yet again you are being willful ignorant. I took a picture just like you asked me to, that picture clearly shows the MBA monitor to show the image much blurrier than the external monitor. As I said in that post, and I quote "It's very hard to see in a picture, it's worse in real life. But this picture shows the difference.".
Again, the picture I posted clearly shows how the MBA display is worse, it's just that it is actually a larger difference in real life.
...
Like I said before, if "[the difference is] very hard to see in a picture" then how could there possibly be worlds of difference between the monitors?
And again, your interpretation of the picture isn't evidence of what you think it is. Whatever you're perceiving as "blurriness" in this nature photograph can easily be (and almost certainly is) a result of differences of screen resolution and how the pictures are scaled to fit said screen resolutions.
Looking at the picture again, I see an image that's sharp enough that even with the low resolution of the photograph, I can more or less make out the pixels of the icons in the top right corner. The wifi icon, battery icon, etc.
So my interpretation of your same picture is that the image is extremely sharp and not blurry at all.
Of course, if you have a digital signal going into an LCD panel, this makes perfect sense, because it's literally physically impossible for the image to be blurry. The digital signal is perfectly synchronized and each pixel in the panel is controlled independently.
Displays are considered blurry when the colors of the pixels spill into neighboring pixels. This was a common problem with CRTs where the electron beams often didn't line up perfectly with the grilles, and then still a problem when people were sending analog VGA signals to LCD displays, since analog signals can't be synchronized perfectly.
But the idea that you're describing the MBA screen as blurry when that's a physical impossibility, that alone should seriously call into question your opinions about screen quality.
