Screen Resolution

[trufflehunter (Wayne Robinson)]

1280 x 1024 on the main PC, 1024 x 768 on the lappy.
It's considered 'standard practice' to develop web pages for 800 x 600, but most people run at 1024 x 768 at least these days.

Make 'em scroll, I say!

[RAJAH235]

I have enough trouble finding the keypad with normal vision, & run 800 x 600 on a 'MAGVIEW' 17" flat CRT. Works very nicely, thank you. L. Tried smaller, didn't like!

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Well, after getting a headache from eye strain and Cheryl screaming out "What have you done to this computer" I have put it back to 800 x 600 again so I can read it!

Was worth a try!

[acropolite (Phil)]

Ken you can simply change the screen font size as well as the icon size at higher resolutions and still have a readable display but with the advantages of higher resolution for image work etc..

[fringe_dweller]

I'm definitely NO expert! just a user of them, but! CRT's rule for a few reasons to me - number one is they have many true/native resolutions - wereas TFT's (thats what my young jedi friends call LCD's ) have only one true optimum/native resolution and if your video card cant handle your new 20inch lcd's true/native resolution 1600x1200, you have three options, 1/ upgrade your video card to probably at least 256meg/decent mhz 2/ reduce the resolution on the screen , which is just doubling up on pixels to achieve this EDIT: ie Blocky, - which is just dumb and a rip off (unlike a CRT which retains true pixel size) 3/ reduce the overall size and have a/varying black borders (which defeats having the new 20" monitor a bit) I find it so boring all those 17" ect with the one standard 1280x1024 native resolution (i'm on a mac which has some weird and funky res's sometimes incidently lol) I am impressed with LCD's for all the obvious reasons mentioned, no cancer, size ect., but totally unimpressed with the colours, i think colours are still MUCH better on a CRT personally, not that many people would be as fussy as me?. And sadly recently i went to upgrade to a mitsubishi 19" diamondtron true flat screen (the only brand/model CRT i want - worth getting) - and they are discontinued!! - they still make the cheaper CRT's tho. This is very sad news for CRT lovers - you are now forced to go tft - not happy Jan! Since they got the refresh rate/Hz equivilant to 8ms and 16ms on the LCD's, all the gamers and video people are happy, and demand dropped for the highend CRT's i guess - classy large CRT's RIP! not to mention it has turned getter a bigger screen for me from 500 dollar solution to a 1500 dollar solution (with new video card) for the same quality/size aarrggghh!
My 6 year old mitsi diamondtron 17" (phosphors are going of course) I use at 1024x768 85 Hz
Cheers
Kearn

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Thanks Phil. Someone else said that too (Mike I think).

Don't tell me how to do it yet as I will probably get confused. I will wait till I get my new pooter and try it then. My pooter fix-it man is getting me a new pooter to rent from him cheap. He rents PC's to students and pensioners for about $7 a week. It will have Windows XP (whatever that is) and it will be a 'one point something' Mhz. Mine is only 700.

Can't wait. This pooter has had it's day methinks.

[RAJAH235]

Ken, You won't 'know' yourself. WOW! XP Home! @ 1.? meg! Just joking. Will be heaps faster. XP means 'heaps of extras'. L.

[ballaratdragons (Ken)]

Coooooool! I like extras! Especially if it's extra graphics programs

[MiG]

Originally Posted by fringe_dweller

I'm definitely NO expert! just a user of them, but! CRT's rule for a few reasons to me - number one is they have many true/native resolutions - wereas TFT's (thats what my young jedi friends call LCD's ) have only one true optimum/native resolution and if your video card cant handle your new 20inch lcd's true/native resolution 1600x1200, you have three options, 1/ upgrade your video card to probably at least 256meg/decent mhz 2/ reduce the resolution on the screen , which is just doubling up on pixels to achieve this EDIT: ie Blocky, - which is just dumb and a rip off (unlike a CRT which retains true pixel size) 3/ reduce the overall size and have a/varying black borders (which defeats having the new 20" monitor a bit) I find it so boring all those 17" ect with the one standard 1280x1024 native resolution (i'm on a mac which has some weird and funky res's sometimes incidently lol) I am impressed with LCD's for all the obvious reasons mentioned, no cancer, size ect., but totally unimpressed with the colours, i think colours are still MUCH better on a CRT personally, not that many people would be as fussy as me?. And sadly recently i went to upgrade to a mitsubishi 19" diamondtron true flat screen (the only brand/model CRT i want - worth getting) - and they are discontinued!! - they still make the cheaper CRT's tho. This is very sad news for CRT lovers - you are now forced to go tft - not happy Jan! Since they got the refresh rate/Hz equivilant to 8ms and 16ms on the LCD's, all the gamers and video people are happy, and demand dropped for the highend CRT's i guess - classy large CRT's RIP! not to mention it has turned getter a bigger screen for me from 500 dollar solution to a 1500 dollar solution (with new video card) for the same quality/size aarrggghh!
My 6 year old mitsi diamondtron 17" (phosphors are going of course) I use at 1024x768 85 Hz
Cheers
Kearn

I'd say your young Jedi friends have the more accurate name. TFT means thin film transistor. It could just as well be a touchpad or a single transistor rather than a display. And not all LCDs use TFT technology.

CRTs do handle multiple resolutions nicely, but they also have a characteristic pixel size due to their dot pitch. IIRC, my IBM badged Sony G520 can accept an input of 1920 x 1440 pixels but it can't accurately display it. Even at 1600x1200 (my normal res), it can't give a clean picture of single pixel width alternating black and white lines. This is at 60 Hz (only for this test, to try and reduce the effect of the video card's output). The video card is a Radeon 9600Pro
This is a monitor that currently costs $1800 (professional series 21" Sony). Cheap monitors like the $600 19" Mitubishi (can't remember model, was a flat screen though) I bought suck compared to this. So my point is, LCDs don't lie (figuratively speaking) to you about their resolutions, especially when fed a digital signal.
As for requiring a 256 MB card to feed a 1600x1200 LCD, well, that's just baloney. From what I've seen, even the modern budget cards can do 1920x1440. My 128 MB 1.5 year old card does 2048 x something (although not digital). Remember, with LCDs you don't need a 85 or 100 Hz ref rate because they don't have the fading between scans.
So, I disagree with point 1, and that makes 2 and 3 moot unless you're playing games (in which the speed penalty of a high resolution can be too high).

I used to constantly bag LCDs, but the aspects I hated (colours, black level, ghosting) are better than they used to be. Their sharpness, size and power usage (my monitor uses up to 130 W) is attractive.
I helped my brother take his SGI badged 21" G500 to a LAN party. It weighs 30 kg. It is not fun.

[fringe_dweller]

"CRTs do handle multiple resolutions nicely, but they also have a characteristic pixel size due to their dot pitch. IIRC, my IBM badged Sony G520 can accept an input of 1920 x 1440 pixels but it can't accurately display it.
Even at 1600x1200 (my normal res), it can't give a clean picture of single pixel width alternating black and white lines. This is at 60 Hz (only for this test, to try and reduce the effect of the video card's output). The video card is a Radeon 9600Pro
This is a monitor that currently costs $1800 (professional series 21" Sony). Cheap monitors like the $600 19" Mitubishi (can't remember model, was a flat screen though) I bought suck compared to this. So my point is, LCDs don't lie (figuratively speaking) to you about their resolutions, especially when fed a digital signal."
_
Hi MiG - i did preface my rant with my admittance to my very average knowledge of computers ect. I knew there were some experts lurking around the place :-) thanks for the info/help but...

Those "cheap" $600 top of the range in mitsi 19" full flat screen monitors you mention were a mere $1200 not that long ago (and its not like they went down in quality) I could get them wholesale so thats why i said $500. I was always well aware of the high end Sony's in particular - but i have never actually met many (only one) computer users (and I know a few that have owned things like 7000 dollar laptops ect.) that owned one for home, they reckon it was just over the top to get for personal use only. The "cheap" mitsi crt monitors range used the same top of range mitsi tubes that apple used in their imacs and badged and matched "apple display" with all their towers for years and years, until they were fazed out a year or more so ago in favour of over priced , but nice LCD displays (they are still in the emacs i think). These are the set ups that were the staple of the world wide graphics industry, they thought they were decent enough monitor range??! That is the first time i have heard anyone call badged apple mac stuff cheap! lol If you think that is a cheap and nasty monitor I would hate to think how you describe the many much cheaper and nastier crt monitors I have seen around the place!! ie complete fishbowls ect.!!
-
"As for requiring a 256 MB card to feed a 1600x1200 LCD, well, that's just baloney. From what I've seen, even the modern budget cards can do 1920x1440. My 128 MB 1.5 year old card does 2048 x something (although not digital)."

well unfortunately my present G5 mac only came with a Geforce FX 5200 64meg video card, and yes I want to keep playing (new) games, i would of been happy on only 1280X1024 on the 19 crt - but if i have go up, i want go for as good as possible - as for going for 128meg card - I think i might as well go a bit further if i am going to go to all that trouble for not a lot more, and be done with it. And remember mac dont have as wide a range of agp video cards that are available to PC users. In fact my old very early model G3 b&w tower only ever had one compatible agp video card ever made for it (ati rage 32meg ouch!! - but back then 6 years ago that was the equivalant of 64meg video in a pc)!! Not long after that model and up to the present, the situation improved a LOT!, Thats crazy i know - but i have my reasons for using mac. But my present problem with monitors really isnt because i am mac user, so thats beside the point. And not all games top resolutions are the same and matching as you know - you do have to resize for some and then you get the problem with shrinkage with borders with lcd. blah blah we could go on



"Remember, with LCDs you don't need a 85 or 100 Hz ref rate because they don't have the fading between scans.
So, I disagree with point 1, and that makes 2 and 3 moot unless you're playing games (in which the speed penalty of a high resolution can be too high).

I used to constantly bag LCDs, but the aspects I hated (colours, black level, ghosting) are better than they used to be. Their sharpness, size and power usage (my monitor uses up to 130 W) is attractive.
I helped my brother take his SGI badged 21" G500 to a LAN party. It weighs 30 kg. It is not fun.[/QUOTE]

Cheers
Fringey

[acropolite (Phil)]

I'm with you Mig. I've just converted to an LCD monitor with 1280x1024 native resolution. My video is nothing special, on board Intel graphics and the image is that sharp you could cut paper with it and more readable than my old Philips CRT was at 1024x768