Best monitor resolution?

[Guest]

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

I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768, but
the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.

So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor like
this?

 

[Guest]

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

"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:com9bn$qq2$1@kermit.esat.net...
>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768, but
> the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
> So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
> everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor like
> this?

I don't know what kind of lines you are talking about, but here
is something that might interest you...

http://blogs.msdn.com/tonyschr/archive/2004/03/23/94391.aspx

It talks about the DPI setting and some of the other tweaks you
can use to adjust sizes when you increase resolution.

 

[Guest]

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

"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:com9bn$qq2$1@kermit.esat.net...
>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768,
>but the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
> So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
> everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor
> like this?
>
>
http://tinyurl.com/634ds

1600x1200@85Hz

 

[Guest]

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

"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote:

>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it
>1024x768, but the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.

Maybe you are too close.

>So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons
>and everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good
>monitor like this?

A good monitor should look good at 1024x768.

The best monitor resolution, assuming Windows, is about 1024x768.
Resolution has a lot to do with font and object/window sizes.

One advantage (IMO the main advantage) of having a large screen
isn't so you can have a higher resolution, it is so you are more
able to relax and see clearly from varying distances away from the
screen.

 

[Rob]

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

"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message
news:Xns95B3BBD3258Fwisdomfolly@151.164.30.44...
> "Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it
>>1024x768, but the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
> Maybe you are too close.
>
>>So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons
>>and everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good
>>monitor like this?
>
> A good monitor should look good at 1024x768.
>
> The best monitor resolution, assuming Windows, is about 1024x768.
> Resolution has a lot to do with font and object/window sizes.
>
> One advantage (IMO the main advantage) of having a large screen
> isn't so you can have a higher resolution, it is so you are more
> able to relax and see clearly from varying distances away from the
> screen.
>
>
>

Two seperate lines of thought on this. Many of us have larger monitors
for the extra real estate it provides. Jamming more onto one screen. I
would never consider running anything less than 1600x1200@85Hz on
my 21"

>
>
>
>
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

1280X1024 works quite well for me on my petite 19"...... Between this and
1024x768, the images/icons etc. seem to be disproportioned.

I think its just personal preference, try a few more and see what you
like..

Doug


"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:com9bn$qq2$1@kermit.esat.net...
>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768,
>but the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
> So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
> everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor
> like this?
>
>

 

[Guest]

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

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:23:39 -0000, "Richard Dower"
<richarddower@hotmail.com> wrote:

| I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768, but
| the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
|
| So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
| everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor like
| this?

I have a ViewSonic 21", which actually displays 20". It's set at
1280x960 with 85Hz refresh. In order to compensate for shrinking icon
space and fonts, I increased icon spacing to 94 on both horizontal and
vertical as well as increasing icon font size to 12 (font is Verdana).
Other settable font sizes were increased as well.

My interest is in appearance and convenience rather than trying to
squeeze so much onto the desktop that I need a magnifying glass to see
everything.

I'm using WinXP in Classic mode. Not sure all this works in standard
XP mode.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[user]

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

On Thu, 2 Dec 2004 05:23:39 -0000, Richard Dower wrote:

> I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768, but
> the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
> So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
> everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor like
> this?

I run 1600 x 1200 on a 19" and it looks great - should be on yours too
(especially with the extra screenscape).

 

[Guest]

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

"Rob" <rob@nospam.com> wrote:
>"John Doe" <jdoe@usenet.is.the.real.thing> wrote in message

>> The best monitor resolution, assuming Windows, is about 1024x768.
>> Resolution has a lot to do with font and object/window sizes.
>> One advantage (IMO the main advantage) of having a large screen
>> isn't so you can have a higher resolution, it is so you are more
>> able to relax and see clearly from varying distances away from the
>> screen.
>
>Two seperate lines of thought on this. Many of us have larger
>monitors for the extra real estate it provides. Jamming more onto
>one screen. I would never consider running anything less than
>1600x1200@85Hz on my 21"

By the way, the original author can change icon size in Windows (he
was distressed by small icons when changing to a higher resolution).

Bigger is better, of course. And a single monitor is simpler/easier.

But if you want more real estate in Windows (XP SP1, for example),
there are many advantages to using multiple, smaller monitors. The
benefit is maximized probably when the size/price curve skyrockets. I
not saying that point is less than 21", it might be 21" now, still
when you jack up the resolution to fit more Windows, you're viewing
distance becomes more restricted.

 

[Guest]

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

"Richard Dower" <richarddower@hotmail.com> :
>I have a Mitsubishi Diamond Pro 2070SB, 22". I normally run it 1024x768, but
>the screen is sooooooo big i see lines on the screen.
>
>So i went 1152x864 and the lines are not so noticable, but icons and
>everything/desktop is smaller. Any idea what is best for a good monitor like
>this?
>
I use 1800x1440 on a 21" monitor with fonts set to 120 dpi. Secondary
monitor is 1600x1200 on a 19".
Before I messed with the DPI settings, the highest resolution I could take
was 1600x1200 on the 21 and 1280x1024 on the 19.