Re: Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:43 -0700
Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24 April 2012 10:39, Sian Mountbatten <poenikatu@fastmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT
> > screen. It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.
That's pretty much standard in the '19 inch' size for TVs and monitors.
> >
> > 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?
>
> I consider anything below 1600x1200 as utterly unusable.
> Unfortunately, most monitors nowadays are built with the idea that
> people use them only to watch movies. So the next best thing is
> 1920x1200; that should get you the best of both worlds. Samsung, e.g.,
> has some *very* nice monitors at that resolution.
>
>
1920x1080 is 1080p in the broadcast TV world, or 'full' HD, therefore
high volume production and a reasonable price. I've just moved to a TV
at this resolution from 1440x900, and life is definitely better. The
computer feels newer and more powerful, even though of course in
reality it is struggling harder to shift more pixels around.
--
Joe
Reply to: