screen resolution

Discussion in 'Hardware' started by doug456, Feb 8, 2004.

  1. logikos


    I definitely think higher resolutions are the way to go if your eyes are good enough to view the small characters. With lower resolutions, your eyes have to work harder to grasp the full picture by continuing to scan the peripherals of your central focus.

    I personally use 1600x1200 on two 21" monitors.

    By the way, I purchased two Samsung Syncmaster 1100DF CRT monitor for $500 each. They are the best deal around if you have the desk space. Crisp as a Sony, and the dot pitch is superior.
    #21     Feb 15, 2004
  2. H2O


    4 crt's (At home) @ 1280*1024
    2 flatscreens (office) @ 1600*1200

    I do have to addapt when switching .....
    #22     Feb 15, 2004
  3. 2 19" CRT's @ 1600x1200. Smooth, clear, no problem. LCD waste of money. Use the cash to buy beer.
    #23     Feb 15, 2004
  4. I use a 19" NEC MultiSync FP950 at 1600x1200 and a 17" LG Flattron 795FT Plus also at 1600x1200 both at 75hz.

    Both are CRTs and I've been running them for 2+ years with no eye strain problems. I do have glasses -5.00 prescription and in that time, my eyes haven't gone more out of whack.

    I do have a big beef about montors at a lot of people's work. They always run at a low refresh rate, like at 60hz and after sitting and looking at it for about 10 minutes, my eyes start to hurt. The flickering is painful. I always try to bump them up to 75 or 85hz but most computers cheap out on their video card and can't go above 60hz.
    #24     Feb 15, 2004