[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?



On 24/04/12 08:35 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:
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.

I like CRTs but, as you mentioned, they do take up desk space. They also use more energy than a modern LCD (especially the LED variety). And they weigh a lot. Moreover they are, like 4:3 screens, becoming hard to find.

I replaced my old 21" CRT (I had been running it at 1792x1344x32@75hz) in favour of a 24" LED monitor running at 1920x1080. That's a drop of .4M pixels but the really high resolution LCD screens cost a lot more.

For some reason the 1920x1200 LCD monitors aren't readily available in my area or I would have bought one.


Reply to: