Re: Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:56 -0400, Gary wrote in message
<[🔎] 4F9706F0.3000302@rogers.com>:
> On 24/04/12 01:39 PM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> > When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT
> > screen. It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.
> >
> > Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to
> > have 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software?
> > What about HD TV? And movies?
> >
> > Any comments welcome
>
> Multiply the two numbers together to get the total pixel count. 1440
> x 900 is a standard 16:9 ratio that gives you 1,296,000 pixels.
>
> 1600x1200 is a pretty good 4:3 ratio that gives you 1,920,000 pixels.
> That's about 50% more pixels.
>
> However, it's getting harder to find 4x3 screens around. In North
> America, the common size is 1920x1080, a standard HD size at 16:9.
> That gives you 2,073,600 pixels - an insignificant increase over
> 1600x1200.
>
> You may have some luck finding a 1920x1200 screen (16:10) which gives
> you 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost double the count of your 1440x900
> screen. However, these ones are rare.
>
> For any TV viewing, the programming is all going to 16:9 so if you
> want to watch current programming, go with a widescreen monitor. The
> 16:9 ones work well but 16:10 can allow you to have onscreen
> controls, etc. below the program. Since 16:9 are more common and
> generally cheaper...
>
> You can watch widescreen programs on a 4:3 monitor, just like you can
> on a TV. However, you won't be using the full screen size.
>
> There's little point in getting any monitor that doesn't do at least
> 1920x1080 these days. If you are on a very tight budget, getting a
> used monitor may be the answer.
..if you can afford the desk space, get a _big_ CTR, I usually
run mine at 2048x1536x32@58 to 60Hz, power grid here is 50Hz.
--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.
Reply to: