Any 21" LCDs with native resolution below 1600X1200?

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

I'd love to get a 21" LCD but 1600X1200 is too small for me. I mostly
use the computer to read text. Are there any 21" LCDs that are under
1600X1200 these days?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On 15 May 2004 16:09:47 -0700, s_white5@yahoo.com (Steve White) wrote:

>I'd love to get a 21" LCD but 1600X1200 is too small for me. I mostly
>use the computer to read text. Are there any 21" LCDs that are under
>1600X1200 these days?

You're better off the get a 19" LCD with 1280x1024 native res. Lot
cheaper too.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

No, unfortunately that resolution is industry standard for that size.

--
DaveW



"Steve White" <s_white5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f074830b.0405151509.5c5d28ed@posting.google.com...
> I'd love to get a 21" LCD but 1600X1200 is too small for me. I mostly
> use the computer to read text. Are there any 21" LCDs that are under
> 1600X1200 these days?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:48:49 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:

>No, unfortunately that resolution is industry standard for that size.

And why I will never buy one.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"Steve White" <s_white5@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f074830b.0405151509.5c5d28ed@posting.google.com...
> I'd love to get a 21" LCD but 1600X1200 is too small for me. I mostly
> use the computer to read text. Are there any 21" LCDs that are under
> 1600X1200 these days?

Try looking for a LCD TV/monitor. Pixel format should be smaller on that
application,
perhaps such as "WVGA" which is 864 by 480. But, due to higher light output,
and demand,
price is likely not very atractive.

Not Gimpy Anymore(!)

 

[Doc]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Allan Sheely typed this:

> On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:48:49 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:

>>No, unfortunately that resolution is industry standard for that size.
>
> And why I will never buy one.

You and ME both.
I just installed a 20 LCD and the 'default' resolution was so high
I could not make out the text with a magnifying glass. DANG!
When I set it to a lower resolution it became blurry...

I generally use 1024x768 on my 21" Mits and, with some old eyes,
that is fine. Higher resolution and I am tired after a few hours.

Hope the makers get smart 'cause they have to find a way around
the 'high rez' LCDs for us old folks.


--
Rich "Doc" Colley

mailto: pc-dc-doc@nospam.comcast.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

Doc wrote:

> Allan Sheely typed this:
>
>> On Sat, 15 May 2004 23:48:49 GMT, "DaveW" <none@zero.org> wrote:
>
>>>No, unfortunately that resolution is industry standard for that size.
>>
>> And why I will never buy one.
>
> You and ME both.
> I just installed a 20 LCD and the 'default' resolution was so high
> I could not make out the text with a magnifying glass. DANG!
> When I set it to a lower resolution it became blurry...
>
> I generally use 1024x768 on my 21" Mits and, with some old eyes,
> that is fine. Higher resolution and I am tired after a few hours.
>
> Hope the makers get smart 'cause they have to find a way around
> the 'high rez' LCDs for us old folks.

You could try using the component inputs on a 1024x768 LCD TV or looking for
one that has DVI.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)