Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

LCD monitor questions, esp optimum resolution

Last response: in Systems
Share
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 5:35:09 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.

I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)

And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.

So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?

Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.

Andy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 5:35:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Axnot wrote:
> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>
> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
> 1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
> have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)
>
> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
> think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
> as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
> not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.
>
> So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
> displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
> other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?
>
> Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.
>
> Andy

You CAN run a native 1280x1024 at 1024x768, but I bet when you get it,
you won't want to :) 
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 10:11:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

The difference is number of transistors in the screen. 15" uses (usually)
1024*768, so the bigger screen on the 17" holds more transistors.
And one mostly uses the native resolution, as you can't set at bigger, and
the picture quality flies out the window if you use a lower resolution, as
the screen has to interpolate and group pixels together for that (unless it
just uses smaller area on the screen).


--
Tumppi
Reply to group
=================================================
Most learned on nntp://news.mircosoft.com
Helsinki, Finland (remove _NOSPAM)
(translations from FI/SE not always accurate)
=================================================

"Andy Axnot" <Andy@mepis1.invalid> kirjoitti viestissä
news:p an.2004.07.22.01.36.20.490852@mepis1.invalid...
> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>
> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
> 1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
> have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)
>
> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
> think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
> as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
> not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.
>
> So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
> displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
> other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?
>
> Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.
>
> Andy
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 22, 2004 7:10:17 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

Andy Axnot wrote:
>
> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>
> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
> 1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
> have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)
>
> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
> think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
> as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
> not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.
>
> So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
> displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
> other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?
>
> Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.
>
> Andy

Andy,

I agree with you. I too think a 17" monitor should be 1024x768. What I
ended up doing is waiting until my local Fry's had a sale on 19" LCD's.
I picked up an Envision EN9250 19" with 1280x1024 native resolution for
$449. No rebates involved. The price wasn't much more than a 17" and to
me it's easier on the eyes. Also let me add that I do play games and I
don't see a problem with my monitor at all.

Bob
--
Takeoff is an option.
Landing is a must!


And in the end on wheels we will depend.
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 2:11:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 23:10:53 -0400, David Besack wrote:

> Andy Axnot wrote:
>> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
>> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>>
>> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
>> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
>> 1024x768, native resolution.
>
> You CAN run a native 1280x1024 at 1024x768, but I bet when you get it,
> you won't want to :) 

I'm not trying to, Dave. The Norcent's native resolution is 1024x768.
What I'm wondering is why so many are 1280x1024.

Andy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 23, 2004 2:17:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:10:17 -0500, Bob M wrote:

> Andy Axnot wrote:
>>
>> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
>> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>>
>> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
>> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
>> 1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
>> have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)
>>
>> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
>> think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
>> as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
>> not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.
>>
>> So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
>> displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
>> other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?
>>
>> Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.
>>
>> Andy
>
> Andy,
>
> I agree with you. I too think a 17" monitor should be 1024x768. What I
> ended up doing is waiting until my local Fry's had a sale on 19" LCD's.
> I picked up an Envision EN9250 19" with 1280x1024 native resolution for
> $449. No rebates involved. The price wasn't much more than a 17" and to
> me it's easier on the eyes. Also let me add that I do play games and I
> don't see a problem with my monitor at all.
>
> Bob

Thanks for the response, Bob. Sounds like a good idea, *depending* on the
availability of a good price on a 19 incher.

Andy
Anonymous
a b B Homebuilt system
a b C Monitor
July 24, 2004 3:20:06 AM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (More info?)

In article <pan.2004.07.22.22.18.34.884419@mepis1.invalid>, Andy Axnot says...
>
>On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 15:10:17 -0500, Bob M wrote:
>
>> Andy Axnot wrote:
>>>
>>> I am considering buying a new monitor, perhaps a 17" lcd, mostly for text
>>> use, with some picture viewing, still and video; no games.
>>>
>>> I note that most 17" LCD monitors have a native resolution of 1280x1024.
>>> But Staples has a Norcent 17" lcd on sale that has a resolution of
>>> 1024x768, native resolution. This brings up two questions: 1) anybody
>>> have an opinion of the Norcent LM-730? (I think that's the model #)
>>>
>>> And, perhaps more importantly, why are most 17" lcd monitors 1280x1024? I
>>> think I would prefer 1024x768 at 17", it should be more readable I think,
>>> as long as we're dealing with different *native* resolutions. I guess I'm
>>> not as eagle-eyed as I used to be.
>>>
>>> So why do most manufacturers market the higher resolution 1280x1024 17"
>>> displays? Is there an inherent advantage to one resolution over the
>>> other, and would the optimum for text be different for graphics or games?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I've asked more than 2 questions, but TIA.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>
>> Andy,
>>
>> I agree with you. I too think a 17" monitor should be 1024x768. What I
>> ended up doing is waiting until my local Fry's had a sale on 19" LCD's.
>> I picked up an Envision EN9250 19" with 1280x1024 native resolution for
>> $449. No rebates involved. The price wasn't much more than a 17" and to
>> me it's easier on the eyes. Also let me add that I do play games and I
>> don't see a problem with my monitor at all.
>>
>> Bob
>
>Thanks for the response, Bob. Sounds like a good idea, *depending* on the
>availability of a good price on a 19 incher.
>
>Andy
>
>
Andy,

Just my two cents here since you have already received some excellent advice. I
always ran my Envision 7100 at 1024x768 despite the fact that the native
resolution was 1280x1024.

When I got my new Veiwsonic Vx900 I asked the same question in this newsgroup
and some other old fart came to the rescue. He suggested to raise the dpi to a
custom setting and set it at 115%. Bingo!! This solved the small text problem
and I like it so much I changed the Envision and my 19" Compaq CRT to 1280x1024
with the same DPI settings.

When you change this, Winderz will give you a spiel about inserting your disc
but then it says if you reboot it can use the files on your hard drive to make
the change. Just say yes and reboot. I notice that it seems to take another
reboot to finally "set in" but give it a chance.

Oh yeah, I wouldn't buy the Norcent. I sort of liked its looks in the store but
I have since read some bad reviews. You're gonna spend over 400 bucks here so
get the best you can afford because service and warranty are important on
hardware that expensive. I always liked my Envision but since I bought a 15"
and a 19" Viewsonic it would be hard for me to use any other brand. They are
superb monitors but there are other good brands. Try browsing Newegg. They
have reviews from other buyers and links to the product website as well as specs
and warranty info.

Oh yeah, I'm not a gamer either.

Ed
!