Re: Monitor question
On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 10:57:31AM EST, Camaleón wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Dec 2010 10:30:57 -0500, Mark Neidorff wrote:
[..]
> When it comes to LCD/TFT, you have to pay attention to native
> resolution.
I agree. And the highest you can get.
> Look, 17" displays tend to use the same resolution (dots per inch)
> than 19" ones (1280x1024) so people tend to think they gain when
> buying a 17" screen because they get the same viewable area but they
> pay less (17" monitors are cheaper).
Being near-sighted, a 17" monitor suits me best: with larger monitors,
I am so close to the display that I constantly have to move my head to
the right, to the left, to the right.. and end up with a crick in the
neck. :-)
> But I prefer to stick to 19" LCD screens (and avoid as much as I can
> those wide/narrow screens, 16:9 or 16:10) because text and icons are
> larger than in 17" displays and I get a good resolution (1280x1024 is
> better than a wide screen (1280x800).
Have you had too much champagne over the holiday? :-)
Last time I looked, all _affordable_ monitors I could find were 16:9
aka. Hollywood's preferred 1080p. And as far as recent laptop models are
concerned, they are all 16:9. From what I understand, the manufacturers
have stopped making proper _computer_ displays.
The 4:3 aspect ratio displays that I like.. or the possibly even better
5:4 that you recommend are pretty much a thing of the past. If I had the
money, I might purchase a couple of QSXGA 2560x2048 screens right now..
while they last. But apart from the fact that I am unsure they would
play well with X/linux and run-of-the-mill hardware, the price of such
fiends is rather a deterrent.
[..]
> OTOH, you can always adjust your DPI to a higher value (i.e., 120dpi) so
> while you keep your current/recommended resolution, all, icons and text
> will display bigger and your eyes will suffer less :-)
Yes, that's usually the sensible approach when you want to stick with
the native resolution of your physical screen (as you should) and
globally adjust the size of your fonts, icons, etc. to whatever suits
your particular preferences or your eyesight's idiosyncrasies.
I have noticed that out of the box, and before you fool him by running
X with a lower dpi (such as 96), gnome presents you with large fonts and
icons that make your high-res display look as if it were a 1024x768 or
less. Rather than change font sizes in all kind of never obvious places,
reduce the height or the panels, etc. it is considerably easier and more
reliable to change the dpi and restart X.
cj
Reply to: