On Thu, Aug 03, 2006 at 05:26:22PM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 2 August 2006 at 21:00:43 -0500, David Kelly wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Nikolas Britton wrote:
> >> Me? I'd go for two monster 22 inch CRTs, or three 19 inch CRTs.
> > So lacking in imagination we are. Don't settle for anything less than
> > 30"
> > http://www.apple.com/displays/
> The real question is resolution, not size. Even the 30" display has a
> resolution of only 2560x1600. A reasonable 19" CRT will do 1600x1200,
> or nearly 50% of that resolution. If you compare the prices ($2499
> for the Apple display, about $130 for the 19" monitor), and recall
> that the original poster didn't want to spend much money, this really
> isn't an option.
Sorry my attempt at humor wasn't more obvious.
One big difference with an LCD display vs CRT is that one should
purchase the LCD with the resolution one intends to run. Most can
autosync and fake other resolutions but the LCD is a fixed matrix so
nothing but its native resolution will look right.
If display drivers properly understand DPI then in theory they can
compensate but most often graphics are hardcoded X/Y and display a fixed
pixel size no matter the DPI. A laptop with high numerical LCD
resolution isn't necessarily more desirable than one with same size
display but lower resolution.
When shopping for 17" and 19" LCDs I have noticed most have the same
numerical resolution. Think my home 19" is a Dell FP1905 at 1280x1024.
Now discontinued in favor of the FP1907 which many do not like as well
as the '05. My biggest complaint is that its dimmest setting is maybe a
touch brighter than my preference.
David Kelly N4HHE, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Whom computers would destroy, they must first drive mad.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"