TheHellPatrol
Posts: 1588
Joined: 7/3/2004 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: bink TheHellPatrol, What is the point of having a 20" LCD if you are not going to run at native resolution, which is 1600x1200? You either run it in a window, which means a smaller monitor is OK and 20" LCD is NOT a must, or you scale it, which means a loss of crispness from running in non-native resolution. I don't understand why the compromise in either of those cases makes a 20" LCD a MUST. Bink A "Digital" high-end LCD monitor looks perfect at anything other than 800 x 600. The post started about not being able to read the print ergo: a larger monitor is a MUST and a lower resolution is a MUST for those of us who have burned out our eyes on CRT monitors over the years. Besides, i want the best and i can afford it with the added benefit that my son (10) can play FEAR or Farcry at 1600 x 1200 all day long and doesn't have a problem with it...damn youngsters. In summary, a larger monitor @ 1078 x 768 is perfect for me with my PC glasses with a special anti-glare coating which i wish i knew of 14 years ago. I have 20/20 vision but i can no longer read fine print. Now, if one wants to be frugal, i'll retract my statement that an "LCD" monitor is a must and just say a 20" + is a must. Be warned, a CTR monitor is harmful to the eyes.
< Message edited by TheHellPatrol -- 2/11/2007 11:35:25 PM >
_____________________________
A man is rich in proportion to the number of things he can afford to let alone. Henry David Thoreau
|