On Jan 28, 2011, at 2:06 PM, Kris Tilford wrote:
On Jan 28, 2011, at 12:49 AM, James Therrault wrote:
That's what I suspected.
I think that a 27" might be a limiting factor but still, it would
provide a good deal more real estate...
Remember, it's pixels that count, not physical size. You can buy a
gigantic 52" HDTV and only have a resolution of 1920x1080, and
right now, the smallest 1920x1080 screen I'm aware of comes on a
16" laptop display, and that's still not as high a pixel density as
the iPhone 4's "retinal" display which is the current "record
holder". The new iPad2 is supposed to be 2560x1920 which will
quadruple the pixel count of the current iPad's 1280x960. The iPad2
should be another fantastic product I suspect.
Exactly.
In order to get more resolution, the monitor has to be capable of
displaying it.
That's why when I do get a larger monitor, I want it to be capable
of lot better than the Samsung that I have. This monitor is over
three years old and that's that.
I don't know what the Mini's limitation(s) are but with an effective
256MB VRAM, it should be capable of more than the 1680 x 1050.
With regard to this group, I'm still on dial up on my ancient G4
Gigabit with the 16MB 128 RagePro and it offers resolutions up to
1920 x 1440 on an old Phllips Lightframe 19" CRT.
<sigh>
JT
____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.netzero.net/freeemail?refcd=NZTAGOUT1FREM0210
--
You received this message because you are a member of G-Group, a group for
those using G3, G4, and G5 desktop Macs - with a particular focus on Power Macs.
The list FAQ is at http://lowendmac.com/lists/g-list.shtml and our netiquette
guide is at http://www.lowendmac.com/lists/netiquette.shtml
To post to this group, send email to g3-5-list@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/g3-5-list
