Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays IT

Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors? 549

Posted by timothy
from the special-retro-edition dept.
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.)"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Are There Affordable Low-DPI Large-Screen LCD Monitors?

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:21PM (#30121640)
    Euthanasia
  • Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything? Wouldn't that address the issue?

    • by TheRealMindChild (743925) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:23PM (#30121680) Homepage Journal
      Because there is more to look at than fonts... like the 16x16 icons everywhere.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by NoYob (1630681)

        Because there is more to look at than fonts... like the 16x16 icons everywhere.

        Isn't there a "large Icons" selection?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by tepples (727027)
          There is a preference for large icons, but not all third-party non-free applications respect it.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            Reading glasses - they are cheap ($5) and available (Walgreens). Why everyone feels the need to solve easy problems with complex solutions, I will never know.
            • by SydShamino (547793) on Monday November 16, 2009 @07:19PM (#30123490)

              Reading glasses - they are cheap ($5) and available (Walgreens).

              Why everyone feels the need to solve easy problems with complex solutions, I will never know.

              Yeah, why design or buy a tool that is convenient and pain-free to use when we could just make every human being strap a different tool onto their face.

              And why [wikipedia.org] do [bestwigoutlet.com] these [rogaine.com] exist [hairclub.com] when Walgreens carries a simple [walgreens.com] solution [walgreens.com] for this problem, too?

              • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                by dfghjk (711126)

                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.

            • by Angostura (703910) on Monday November 16, 2009 @08:09PM (#30124004)

              Speaking as a 45 year old who has just had to buy his first pair of reading glasses, I absolutely concur. Not only do have these devices fixed usability problems with my computer display, they also fixed the same problem that was manifesting itself with the rest of reality.

            • It is not that simple. I am 46, and I already have bifocals. I still have trouble with the computer screen. If the bifocal is strong enough to work well for reading and close-up work, it is a little too strong for the computer screen. If the distance section is good for infinity, it is also not right for the screen. A larger screen further away would work, I would be able to focus on it, and it would be large enough to see. I suppose I could try trifocals.

          • by realityimpaired (1668397) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:51PM (#30122264)

            Since we're talking about Windows-land, it's worth mentionning that Windows Vista and Windows 7 both automatically scale icons to fit the display you're using, this way the icons take up about the same amount of physical space on screen, regardless of the size of the screen you're using. (as long as your screen properly reports itself to plug&pray).

            I'm not sure what the issue is, though... if you want to buy somebody a 27" monitor, and are happy with 1366x768 resolution, then buy a TV. It won't cost you anywhere near as much as a 27" computer monitor will cost (besides which, if you specifically want the lower resolution, good luck finding a computer monitor over 17-20" that doesn't come in 1920x1080).

            But if you're in Windows-land, updating to either Vista or 7 would solve the "large fonts and icon scaling" issue without needing to fiddle around with the graphics settings.

            • by shutdown -p now (807394) on Monday November 16, 2009 @06:01PM (#30122422) Journal

              In fact, both Vista and 7, if Aero (i.e. DWM) is enabled, will scale up any application when you raise DPI. If application is marked as DPI-aware in its manifest, DWM will let the application handle that itself (by enlarging fonts and using scaling layouts); otherwise, it will apply simple bitmap scaling to the composed window bitmaps.

              • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                by Lars512 (957723)
                This is one area where OS X lags behind. Sure you can zoom, but if you use a 27" or 30" display, the menu is just as small as on a 13" macbook. As much as I love other aspects of Mac usability, I'm still hoping that tomorrow they'll have the same scalability for large displays that windows and linux have today. My parents are getting old now, and they're both finding this particular aspect of computing a problem. After quite a while, I estimate that about 80% of computer issues my mother has are related to
                • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

                  by TheRaven64 (641858)

                  if you use a 27" or 30" display, the menu is just as small as on a 13" macbook

                  Uh, that's exactly how it should be. Something that is 1cm on one screen should be 1cm on another screen, irrespective of the size of the screens. If you want everything bigger, then override the display DPI setting and apps will automatically be scaled to compensate.

      • by MartijnL (785261) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:27PM (#30121760)
        And all sorts of business critical applications that use unscalable texts in the UI. Now you can blame the application for not scaling but usually just buying a bigger screen for the user is a lot cheaper than having the application fixed (if it is even fixable at all).
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by V!NCENT (1105021)

          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!

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by MBGMorden (803437)

            Indeed. Heck we have one application we got recently where it can created custom database fields, but if you create more than the screen will hold they just go off screen - they don't even have the decency to display a scroll bar. Just inaccessibly off screen.

            As a result we had to bump all users of that app up to 1024x768 minimum. Now, personally, that's pretty low anyways (I run my 17" office LCD at 1280x1024), but a LOT of the older users complain at anything higher than 800x600. And in this case incr

      • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

        by Lord Ender (156273)

        So move to an OS which uses vector icons...

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by bhtooefr (649901)

          Great. Now point me to some modern software (or hardware, for that matter) that can run with IRIX.

      • by V!NCENT (1105021) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:41PM (#30122086)

        It's not my intention to troll, but with KDE4 on Linux everything is vector graphics and scales percentage wise to a resolution instead of Windows XP where everything is just fixed size and looking horrible when scaled up.

        So if you are running KDE 4.3 for example on a low resolution screen (try a full screen Windows game in Wine and kill it from a terminal and switch back to the terminal where X is running and you can see very tiny windows, icons and fonts untill you go to the controll center and set it to run on your native resolution) everything scales down. On higher resolution everything scales up. This, for me, is a major advantage over Gnome = 2.2.8 on very high resolutions.

        I am amazed at why Windows still doesn't do this. Maybe it's for the better to buy a large standard definition Plasma screen. It would eat up about as much power as a large, low-DPI CRT screen and if you can still buy it it is very, very, very cheap. Think about 299 USD...

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by SomeKDEUser (1243392)

          This is exactly it. KDE4 works just as well on my tiny eeepc as on my 22" LCD as on my dual-screen setup.

          Basically, if you cannot see anything because you are using inferior technology and basically propose fixing an inane system (windows/mac with their unscalable UIs) with an inane setup (let's use the LCD for a resolution it is not made for!) your problem is not technological...

          Go live in the now: this is The Year of the Linux Desktop, where Stuff Works As It Should (most of the time). Hell, if you are de

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by PhrostyMcByte (589271)

          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.

    • Is it THAT hard to get Windows to use a larger font for everything? Wouldn't that address the issue?

      In Windows XP, turning on the various "large font options" or telling XP that the screen's PPI is 120 instead of 96 really doesn't work out well in reality. You still end up with web pages where the fonts are super tiny because they were specified in "px" increments.

      Not sure about Vista or Win7...
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by SomeKDEUser (1243392)

        Run linux. Run windows in vmware. Use the magnify effect of kwin to solve your tiny fonts problem. Now, you use the correct resolution of your LCD, have scaling as good as possible, and crash protection.

        Once more linux/KDE saves the day.

    • The problem is there are several programs - mostly proprietary apps - that are set to ONLY work at a certain resolution. You can't change the fonts because of it. I too am interested in what answers come up for this issue.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      To get Windows? No.

      (Display, Appearance, Large Fonts. Also Effects, Use Large Icons. This is for XP.)

      The millions of shitty Windows applications that assume that everything is running using "normal sized fonts," on the other hand? That's the challenge.

      Some of these applications actively ignore the Windows Large Font setting, so even if you set Windows to use Large Fonts, they'll still use the same too-small fonts they've always used. (Not sure how they do that, since I thought Windows just scaled the DPI

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Some of these applications actively ignore the Windows Large Font setting, so even if you set Windows to use Large Fonts, they'll still use the same too-small fonts they've always used. (Not sure how they do that, since I thought Windows just scaled the DPI up.)

        Windows does scale DPI up, so if you request a font with size specified in points, you'll get a proportionally larger font. The problem is that you can also request a font with size specified in pixels, and that, by definition, won't scale with DPI.

        Similar problem in fact exists with CSS, where pt will scale, but px will not (which is why, if you're ever using px to specify text size in your CSS, you're evil, and in Hell you will be blinded and then forced to surf Flash-based websites for eternity).

        Vista an

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by iMaple (769378) *

      The newer versions of Windows have a "Change the size of text and other items on the screen" that scales fonts and (most) icons up nicely. KDE has a font scaling option too (and I'm sure other window managers will have that as well).

      I think using scaling is a much better option than buying a low dpi screen (for example anti-aliasing looks waaaay better)

    • Not all applications honour the Windows Large Font settings (which often forces me to choose other software that does) it's quite frustrating at times.

    • by FrankSchwab (675585) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:34PM (#30121938) Journal
      Please change your default Windows Font size (it's been possible forever; at least as far back as Windows 2000, and probably back into the 3.x days). Some things look good, most things break in unseemly ways. I try doing that every few years, all the way back to my 21" 1600x1200 monitor, but back away from it each time due to incompatible apps.

      I tried it again this year - hooked up a PC to my 47" LCD HDTV running Media Center. Realized that I couldn't read text from the couch, so I increased the system font size to make email, etc legible. And Microsoft Windows Media Center, published by a company that really should be doing this kind of testing, took it's already 1" tall font, readable by a legally blind dog from 50 feet away, and blew it up even larger, breaking the screen layout in unusable ways.

      And, so, I went back to the default system font size, again. I'll try it again in a few more years, but I just don't expect it to ever work the way a user wants it to work.

      /frank
    • by erroneus (253617)

      Worse still, many Windows applications aren't written well enough to manage anything but "standard" sized fonts and have been known to crash when system font sizes are tweaked and manipulated. I haven't seen this lately, but have experienced it before and was the source of much head scratching for a long while.

      In any case, even if the symptoms aren't as extreme as a crash, there are still often problems with apps that don't know how to scale.

    • It was twenty-or-so years ago today.... So back in the late 1980s, I was using Gosling's NeWS [wikipedia.org] on Sun Workstations. It could fit on a Sun3/50 with enough RAM, though it was happier on the SparcStations that came out in ~1989 and following. It was a Postscript-based windowing system - What You See Really Is What You Get.
      It later evolved into Java, which you may have heard of :-) Everything Just Worked (except when it didn't, in which case it crashed and died in ugly ways, but most of the time it worked,

  • It's really just a monitor with speakers and a tuner. Why not solder on a terminator to the antenna in and be done with it?

  • by pwnies (1034518) * <j@jjcm.org> on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:23PM (#30121674) Homepage Journal
    Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.
    • by AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:29PM (#30121800) Journal
      30 inch LCDs are available, with native resolution of 2560x1600. They're not cheap, of course.
      If you need really big pixels for the vision-impaired, just run them at 1280x800 and there will be no artifacts (exactly 1:2 ratio), but still a tolerable resolution.
      • by jeffmeden (135043)

        You got him backward, he wants HIGH dpi monitors, meaning more, smaller pixels in the same space. Fortunately Newegg.com lets you search for LCD screens by pixel pitch, answering ALL the questions in this thread (at least for the product space that Newegg carries).

        http://www.newegg.com/ [newegg.com]

        Carry on.

    • Reminds me,
      At the Whitehouse Photolab (the taxpayer one) they purchased very nice super high res monitors (Dell IIRC) on the tax dime, but then lowered the resolution to 1040*760

      Typical, i guess. They looked like crap.

    • by NitroWolf (72977)

      Are there any affordable High DPI monitors? Back in the day you used to be able to find 17" 1600x1200 crts, which were wonderful. My laptop is running at 1400x1050 @ 10", which is also very enjoyable. Are there any flat panel desktop displays out there with the same density? I'd love a 19-22" display running at 2560x1600.

      I thought I would be pleased with the pixel density of my 1920x1200 15" screen, but I'm not overly pleased with it actually. This surprised me... I use 2560x1600 displays at home at 30" and I figured a smaller screen with a decent resolution would make for a pleasant experience, but I've found that it just makes everything smaller and gives me a bit more screen real estate, but overall I almost prefer a lower resolution screen, since moving everything around on a 15" screen at that resolution just seems te

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by MoonBuggy (611105)

      The impression I get is that DPI is not a selling point, other than in particular (very expensive) niches like medical imaging. That's fairly understandable, I will admit, as I doubt it ever comes into most regular users' purchasing decisions.

      What I find odd, however, is that I've never seen them selling standalone high-res LCDs even at a moderate markup. It'd be one thing if they weren't manufacturing the panels, but it's not too hard to find a laptop with a 17" screen at 1920x1200 - a very quick search sh

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by FrankSchwab (675585)
      Damn whippersnappers! I've got 1440x1050 on this damned Thinkpad, and by the end of a long day, I'm wishing for the same pixels on twice the screen real estate.
      We'll ask you again in about 34 years when you get to be 50, and see what you think at that time...Now get offa my lawn!
      /frank
  • Really this is an issue of software and appearance settings. On my Dad's windows Dell D680 the dot pitch is freaking tiny evenn for me but trying to leave that resolution at max and changing the font and icons sizes just doesn't work. I want a "zoom feature" for the OS. Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine.

  • by pin0chet (963774) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:25PM (#30121718)
    Easy. Get a 30" Desktop LCD like the Dell 3007wfp and run it at exactly 1/2 its native vertical and horizontal resolutions (1280x800). You essentially get the same quality as if it were the native resolution (well, one to one mapping at least) and none of that crazy TV stuff. The best part is that if somebody with, well, "normal" eyes wants to use the monitor in its full 2560x1600 glory, they can simply switch the resolution.
  • by Estanislao Martínez (203477) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:25PM (#30121724) Homepage

    I think the real problem here is that the software is rendering text way too small. Tons of websites out there insist on ridiculously tiny font sizes like 8 point.

    Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution. That seems to have fallen by the wayside, but this is part of the correct solution--the other part is to alow the user to just say they want everything to be displayed larger at a specified ratio.

    • by mea37 (1201159)

      Academics can worry about which is the "real" problem.

      In the real world we have to address which problem we can solve.

    • by SuperKendall (25149) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:42PM (#30122098)

      Apple had at one point a plan to give OS X resolution-independent rendering, so that UI objects are always displayed at the specified physical size independently of resolution.

      I think they still have that plan, but the engineering was delayed in shoring up the iPhone platoform...

      However, you can use this today in most apps for OS X. You install the development tools, and then run /Developer/Applications/Graphics Tools/Quartz Debug.app - there's a menu option under Window for "UI Resolution" where you can set a scale. Most OS X apps after a restart obey the set scale, since they are all using the Cocoa text rendering... it also works with images.

      That may well be a good option for people who are having eyesight issue.

  • The link above the article was for LCD monitors.
    This one looks nice, http://www.lge.com/us/computer-products/monitors/LG-led-monitor-W2486L.jsp [lge.com]

    It is an LG, so a bit pricey and I have seen similar size HD TV with HDMI in at a lower cost.

    For more models and pricing there is always New Egg [newegg.com]

  • Yes [google.com]. To bad there isn't a Google Shopping version of lmgtfy.com [lmgtfy.com]
  • Just put a Fresnel lens in front of the display. It worked for WALL-E.

  • by jeffb (2.718) (1189693) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:27PM (#30121766)

    ...because if your eyes can't focus on the screen, everything's going to be blurry regardless. As long as the blurred area of an individual pixel on the rescaled display projects into an area smaller than the circle of confusion [wikipedia.org] on your retina, it won't affect your perception of the screen's overall sharpness.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Halo1 (136547)

      The distortion by LCD's not running at their resolution are way worse than that. Hell, we even got a bug report from someone about our graph unit supposedly being buggy [freepascal.org] because text rendered in full screen mode was illegible, while the only problem was that he was using an 800x600 resolution on an LCD monitor with a different native size.

      If you download the attachment to that bug report and unzip it, there's a picture of the screen inside. And in fact, it does look quite bad. Of course, there's nothing that

  • Don't know if the specs are good for you, but Apple has a couple of larger size monitors. From my experience they seem to be pretty good at multiple resolutions with decent clarity. Not sure if this is helpful, but it might be worth a look.

  • hate to say it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fermion (181285) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:29PM (#30121792) Homepage Journal
    But to solve this exact problem we bought an large screen iMac. Use large system fonts, larger fonts in mail and safari. The mouse can make things bigger and smaller, or simply magnify.

    I have also solved this problem by using an LCD projector. One day when I left my glasses at home, I spent the day reading off the wall instead of my laptop.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drunkenkatori (85423)

      There's no reason to hate to say it. Apple did accessibility very very well. We bought a 27" iMac for my Grandma with glaucoma and switched it to 800x600. The mac scales it all quite well to fill the giant screen.

      Then when it's time for maintenance, I switch it to full resolution for me and then back to low resolution for her.

      Kinda how video games work.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by fm6 (162816)

        There's every reason to hate to say it. Apple does a lot of things really well, especially when it comes to UI design. But they get on my nerves. They're arrogant, they've never probably supported third-party developers, they're paternalistic towards their users, and sometimes they do things their own way just to show they can.

        What especially bugs me is the way their marketing appeals to the snob factor in their products. Their Mac-and-PC commercials drive me up the wall, even when their criticism of PC sho

  • by Yvan256 (722131) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:29PM (#30121794) Homepage Journal

    Let's say you have a 1680x1050 LCD monitor. Try to set the OS at 840x525. The monitor will use exactly four pixels to display each pixel from the computer, so you'll still get a razor-sharp image.

    Some of you will say that 840x525 is too small (resolution size, not physical display size), but it's a bit larger than 800x480 which is what most netbooks are these days. And given the number of netbooks sold, more and more applications should try to support 800x480, which means they should be okay with 840x525.

  • All you need to do is give them one of these [3dlens.com].

  • Age besets me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by xenoglossy (877946) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:29PM (#30121818)
    Finding myself in my mid 40's with a eye problem has affected work to a large extent. 20/20 all my life to end up with distorted vision in my right eye has led to a number of changes. First, went back to the huge Mitsubishi 2070 CRT. I find it clearer that the 19" LCD's. Second, received glare reducing glasses from corporate HR (gunnars.com) which greatly help glare issues with my wonky eye. Without the glasses I cannot work a full day. Third, installed a theme manager to try and darken the windows screen. For the most part this works except for the inability to darken Outlook backgrounds and still be able to read email.. Fourth, looking into a large LCD or similar which can display a high resolution (lots of real estate) with "large fonts"...
  • Windows supports multiple DPIs. Leave it at native resolution and use the lowest one you can find. This will make the fonts bigger and more readable. If that doesn't work set your base font settings higher.

  • by Sandbags (964742)

    There are SO many assistance applications, magnifiers, and Os adjustments that asking for a lower resolution screen in a given size simply isn't required.

    Also, telling someone to simply get a better pair of glasses is often a cheaper and simpler answer. Also, moving the screen closer to the user and using a smalle r screen also works (as the REASOn for a bigger screen is NOT making things bigger, it's to have more stuff on it!)

    At the proper distance, a 17" LCS at 1024x768 is the same physical size as a 24"

    • by Sandbags (964742)

      and if I myself could see better, I'd have not clicked "post" without some gramatical editing... Of course, that's not a condition of visual imparement, but of I didn't fucking proofread before i clicked post... sorry.

  • New Egg (Score:5, Informative)

    by NewWorldDan (899800) <dan@gen-tracker.com> on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:36PM (#30121974) Homepage Journal

    As usual, it's New Egg to the rescue. You can search monitors according to pixel size. The largest pixel sizes give you a resolution of 1920x1080 at 28" (~$370). There are also some even larger screens at lower resolution, but I don't know how big you want to go. They have large format screens - 32" at 1366x768, but those seem to be quite a bit more expensive (~$950).

    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824254043 [newegg.com]
    http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16889252035 [newegg.com]

    Personally, I prefer a 4:3 ratio on my screens and those have become very hard to find.

  • Q&A (Score:5, Funny)

    by clinko (232501) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:36PM (#30121978) Homepage Journal

    Q: "Why does Bill get a freaki'n big screen TV?!"

    A: "Because Bill doesn't bother the IT guy with stupid questions like this one."

  • So I suppose that a pair of $9.95 reading glasses from Wal-Mart is out of the question, huh? I use a 1.25x pair which is about perfect for looking at a computer screen (which is normally farther away than a book or magazine would be).

  • You're not paying extra for the connectors, you're paying less for the lower resolution. Just get a TV like the Insignia NS-L37Q-10A.
  • I'm in that age bracket and since about 6 years I need reading glasses.

    It was in the office at the computer I noticed one morning I couldn't properly focus any more when close up to the computer screen.
    That same day I went to the supermarket and got some 5 Euro reading glasses and everything is back in focus.

    We use 15.4" laptops with a HD screen, yes the pitch is small but with the right glasses it's no problem what so ever.
    As a matter of fact, decreasing the resolution might make the font large enough

  • Non-problem? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mewsenews (251487) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:45PM (#30122166) Homepage

    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:Non-problem? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ThrowAwaySociety (1351793) on Monday November 16, 2009 @06:58PM (#30123222)

      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

  • by WuphonsReach (684551) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:45PM (#30122180)
    There's really only a few pixel densities manufactured today.

    0.282mm to 0.285mm (19" 1440x900 or 22" 1680x1050)

    0.270mm (seen in 24" 1920x1200 displays)

    0.243mm to 0.248mm (19" 1680x1050 or 22" 1920x1080)

    Personally, I find the 0.245mm pixels to be too small, with the 0.285mm pixels to be just about perfect for me. Then there's the 15.4" Thinkpad display that is 1680x1050, that has really really small pixels (around 128ppi or 0.200mm).

    There is an Acer 27" that is 2048x1152 with reportedly 0.291mm pixels.

    Basically, when monitor shopping, you need to look at a particular resolution (such as 1680x1050) and then make sure to buy the displays that are the upper end of the size range. The 1680x1050 glass is currently sold in sizes that range from 19" to 22". Your older users will be a lot happier with the 22" 1680x1050.

    Or you could go looking for 24-26" 720p TV sets which are typically 1360x768 and have very large pixels. Of course, the small resolution will quickly become a bane to future users.

    All of the smaller 1080p TV sets are all 24", which is only a pixel size of around 0.270mm. So the 22" 1680x1050 displays with 0.285mm pixels are a better choice.
  • Free Solution (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) on Monday November 16, 2009 @05:55PM (#30122322)

    Start / All Programs / Accessories / Accessibility / Magnifier

    This will magnify the area around your mouse without too much impact on everything else. Best case scenario: No need for a new monitor. (Maybe a second monitor just for the magnification?) Worst case scenario: It does nothing to help you and you've spent no money to find that out.

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Monday November 16, 2009 @07:15PM (#30123454)

    I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....

    Another point: why would you ever buy a 1680x1050 monitor? they cost practically the same as a 1920x1200 monitor but can't display HD at native resolution (1290x1080). Even if you currently don't think you'll ever need to watch HD, wouldn't it be sensible to cough up the extra 99 cents and buy a 1920x1200 just in case?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by oasisbob (460665)

      I never did understand why many people cant grasp the concept that system font size is independent of screen resolution. You'd think they'd notice the stupidity of buying a 30" 2560x1600 monitor then running their whole desktop at 1366x768 but noooo....

      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 h

You know, the difference between this company and the Titanic is that the Titanic had paying customers.

Working...