Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors? 549
jtownatpunk.net writes "As time goes by, I find myself supporting a greater number of users moving through their 40s and into their 50s (and beyond!). I notice more and more of them are lowering the resolution of their displays in order to 'make it bigger.' That was fine in the CRT days, but, quite frankly, LCDs look like crap when they're not displaying their native resolution. My solution at home is to hook my computer up to a big, honkin' 1080p HDTV, but that's a bit of a political risk in an office environment. 'Why does Bill get a freakin' big screen TV?!' Plus, it's a waste to be paying for the extra inputs (component, s-video, composite), remote, tuner, etc. that will never be used. And a 37-47" display is a bit large for a desk. So here's my question: Is there a source for 24-27" monitors running at 1366x768 that are affordable and don't have all of the 'TV' stuff? Or is my only choice to just buy 27" HDTVs and admonish the users not to watch TV? (And, no, just giving them big CRTs is not an option. Most people would rather stare at a fuzzy LCD than 'go back' to a CRT.)"
Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger fonts? (Score:2, Insightful)
Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything? Wouldn't that address the issue?
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
Because there is more to look at than fonts... like the 16x16 icons everywhere.
Isn't there a "large Icons" selection?
Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that works. Except for the cheap part. Much cheaper to buy them a 32" TV and throw away the remote.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Fire the dead weight (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
And there is another problem; applications nowadays are made for larger resolutions. A netbook for example, like the ASUS EEE PC 900, has a resolution of 1024*800. Almost all applications out there do not even fit on it!
Non-problem? (Score:3, Insightful)
I've noticed this option doesn't cross the minds of some IT guys, but how about letting the users do what they want?
If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD, why don't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business? Does it actually affect you in the slightest?
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Insightful)
So my solution is to hand out reading glasses to the older users I support?
No. But recommending a visit to the opticians to any users who complain of bad eyesight would be a good idea, regardless of age. Are you planning on getting comfy sofas for those that don't like the office chairs too? If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so. But that's after they've sought medical advice and can support a need for special treatement. The reason you need to worry about other staff asking 'Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!' is because you don't have a good explanation for it. That should tell you evrything about the situation.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
Windows Vista and 7 do this too. Applications can set a flag to tell the window manager that it is high-DPI aware, and get nice big sharp windows. Apps without this flag are rendered at 96dpi and scaled up to avoid any issues with dumb programs.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:2, Insightful)
Just hold control with the desktop selected and scroll the mouse wheel up.. voila! Changable icon sizes (in Vista and 7)
I found that doesn't work in Outlook 2003. Imagine that - MS Outlook for frack's sake!!
So there is a feature in windows Vista and Windows 7 That doesn't work with Outlook 2003. Have you tried Outlook 2007, which was released along with Windows Vista and 7?
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:1, Insightful)
...from your sock-puppet account? How elaborately antisocial.
Re:Non-problem? (Score:4, Insightful)
If they want to look at an awful non-native resolution on their LCD, why don't you shed your single tear about the waste of technology and let them go about their business?
Where does it say that the submitter was whining about the "waste of technology" or forbidding his users from using non-native resolutions? Where does it say that the users are happy with the non-native-resolution "solution?"
He's just trying to find an optimal solution, instead of a half-assed one. Which is exactly what a good IT guy should do
Re:Is the problem really DPI? (Score:1, Insightful)
Websites don't have the ability to "insist" on anything like that. Your browser is your browser and is going to use whatever size it wants to, and there's not a damn thing any website operator can do about that. Find a browser that serves you instead of them, and I think you'll be pretty happy.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
Why? because reading glasses are the proper, high performance solution that also happens to be low cost. Large, low resolution monitors are not only expensive and demanding of desk space, they are lower in performance.
The only reason not to use reading glasses when they are necessary in a work environment is vanity. There is no "convenient and pain-free" tool that will solve every older worker's presbyopia problem except proper eyesight correction.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
Great. Now point me to some modern software (or hardware, for that matter) that can run with IRIX.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:2, Insightful)
"Guideline" is incompatible with "require".
Re:But for those of us who are young... (Score:3, Insightful)
How very nice of you to not understand the original posters' problem. I understand the concept of density - but older people suffering from loss of visual acuity need more ABSOLUTE SIZE, not density. A 21" with the same 1600x1200 will be a lot more useful to them than a 17" with the same resolution.
You might take your own advice, and actually RTFS ...
Seriously, there is no excuse for people in a business environment to still be using crappy monitors - or even single screens. Spend a grand on a couple of decent monitors and a dual-head video card - amortized over the next 5 years, that's less than 10 cents an hour - and your people will more than pay back the extra cost in increased productivity and FEWER MISTAKES.
Errors cost money. Having to squint at stuff on-screen, or having to continually flip through a stack of windows, is $MONEY. The investment will pay for itself within months (or even weeks, if it prevents a few errors or lets people find them quicker).
When a crappy 14" 640x480 VGA monitor cost $600, and a 15" SVGA was in the 4 figures, being cheap on displays was understandable. It's not now, not when businesses should be seeking every method to increase productivity and lower error rates so they can keep clients happy and retain customers (and thus retain their employees).
When a company has a RIF (reduction in force), they should at the very least reapportion material such as LCDs so that more people can double their video real estate. It's not just a morale booster, it more than pays for itself. And while they're at it, cannibalize the ram to bump up those marginal boxes that the underlings, who do the work, are stuck waiting on while the boss has the very latest to watch an f***ing useless podcast on. It's really a shame to walk into a company and see the boss doing that on a half-decent 22" LCD while the secretary in front is struggling to transcribe figures into a spreadsheet on a fuzzy 14" CRT. So yes, I laid the 21" on them. She needed something better, and it was just taking up space here.
I understand that peoples priorities are different, and not everyone understands the cost/benefit ratio of having decent displays. "Oh, it's just a monitor."
Re:I never did understand (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought the same thing: at $DAYJOB, we have a policy to run all 4:3 monitors at 1024x768 because of readability issues. One of the first things I did was to try and change the font sizes instead, hilarity ensued. Not a single business-critical app we used handled the setting correctly. Some ignored it, while some scaled their text up within a fixed-size (x by y pixels) area, which cropped the text on the right edge.
Support for this feature in applications is awful.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:1, Insightful)
If there's a genuine medical need for special equipment like a larger monitor then of course it's good practice to provide that where it's economically viable to do so.
"Good practice" and "economic viability" don't enter into the equation. It's the law. [eeoc.gov] As it should be. You can't simply say "Well that costs money, so no." That's unlawful discrimination. Now not everything can or needs to be accommodated, but easily rectifiable things must. Even if you think that it's "too expensive," it's the employer's responsibility to search out equally effective, less costly options, and "must also consider whether funding for an accommodation is available from an outside source, such as a vocational rehabilitation agency, and if the cost of providing the accommodation can be offset by state or federal tax credits or deductions. You must also give the applicant or employee with a disability the opportunity to provide the accommodation or pay for the portion of the accommodation that constitutes an undue hardship."
But that's after they've sought medical advice and can support a need for special treatement. The reason you need to worry about other staff asking 'Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!' is because you don't have a good explanation for it. That should tell you evrything about the situation.
You do have a good explanation for it: "Bill can't see."
Honestly, if you're worrying more about some pathetic gossiper versus your responsibilities under the law, and a civil society, you have more problems than having to make a CostCo run.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not a question of bad eyesight but of bad design by windows.
The system font is increasingly small and can't be changed.
All they need to do is fix that issue and then this wouldn't matter. A 3000dpi moniter is great if it displays letters a reasonable size but not if it displays them 13 pixels high regard less of the resolution.