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.)"
I know exactly what you need (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:4, Funny)
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)
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:5, Informative)
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.
Reading glasses are not a universl fix. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
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:5, Interesting)
This brings up a good point. A couple of years ago there was an employee where I work who was having ergonomic issues with their workstation. The complaints were valid and one of the solutions turned out to be a flat panel, LCD monitor. The lesson that the rest of the staff learned was that if they complained about ergonomic issues, they would also get LCD monitors. Soon enough a team had to be formed to deal with all of the ergonomic complaints coming from the staff.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad that employees have to complain to get computer equipment that will obviously carry healthier benefits for them regardless of whether or not they're suffering now.
It's like saying all employees should get cheap, shitty chairs until they complain about back problems.
Surely better productivity outweighs the cost of getting these screens?
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
On a related note apparently reading text that is too small does have its downsides: [eyemagazine.com]
Readers were asked to read under six especially demanding conditions known to cause eye fatigue. These were: reading small text sizes; reading low-contrast gray text; reading with a light source behind the reading material to cause glare; reading from too close a distance, which causes the eyes to point inward towards each other (convergence stress); reading from variable focal distances (accommodative stress); and reading while wearing glasses that simulate an astigmatism (refractive stress). While people were reading under these extra stressful conditions, we measured the activation in the orbicularis oculi muscle with a sensor placed 1.25 cm below the eye. Readers reported eye fatigue after reading under each of these conditions. Small text sizes, low contrast, glare and refractive stress all resulted in increased activity in the orbicularis oculi, while convergence stress and accommodative stress did not, though after reading in these two conditions, readers are more likely to report headaches and pain coming from behind the eye. Stressors such as small text size and glare are reported as irritation on the front of the eye.
My personal experience relating to computer screens is that growing up I had CRT, until my mid-twenties when LCD started becoming affordable. Up until I was about nineteen I did not know about changing resolutions on my screen and thus ran in Windows native resolution (which in the case of 95/98/XP seemed to be 60hz). I suffered from frequent migraines that would start with flashing lights in-front of my eyes and end with two days of such blinding headache that I was unable to do anything buy stay in bed, inside a dark room, and during the first day I would throw up at least once. Several days after such an episode I would feel like I was serious hungover. Turning the refresh rate up to 100hz effectively cured me over night, I did not have another episode until my late twenties when I played console with a mate on a CRT TV an entire evening.
Perhaps a bit of a digression there. But do not underestimate the importance of a good screen and a comfortable text/gui-size; undue strain on your eyes can significantly reduce the quality and quantity of your work.
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows 7/Vista allow you to set a global DPI value, and everything scales to that. Text, icons, window decoration, everything. Some older apps struggle with it but most are fine.
XP is a lot more limited, but Windows 7 and Vista have both made big improvements in this area.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Informative)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
So move to an OS which uses vector icons...
Re: (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:5, Informative)
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)
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)
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: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm pretty sure vista used large images for icons.
Vista UI guidelines require [microsoft.com] providing icons of sizes up to 256x256. All stock OS icons follow the guidelines, and, to the best of my knowledge, so does all MS software released after Vista.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:Why reduce the DPI instead of using larger font (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Fixed in NeWS in ~1988 (Score:3, Informative)
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. :-) 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 later evolved into Java, which you may have heard of
Um, don't give them an antenna? (Score:2)
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?
Re:Um, don't give them an antenna? (Score:4, Funny)
Woooooo-EEEEEEEEE-oooooooo!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
-1 for misspelling it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not solder on a terminator to the antenna in and be done with it?
In doing so, you just gave them an antenna. One of my best antennas is a small piece of wire. A better solution might be to use the V chip to block all channels.
But for those of us who are young... (Score:5, Interesting)
30 inch LCD, run at half resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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!
Re: (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.
Software? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Software? (Score:5, Informative)
I want a "zoom feature" for the OS. Hold ctrl-mouse wheel and resize EVERYTHING on the damn machine.
MacOS/X has that feature, FWIW.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Rescaling images is very cheap.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Mac OS X Leopard or Snow Leopard...
Hold down the Apple key and scroll your mouse wheel.. voila.. instant zoom in/zoom out.
Re: (Score:2)
on Windows 7 (and vista) Win key and '+' together does exactly that.
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:Get a 2560x1600 monitor and run at 1280x800 (Score:4, Funny)
I can see the tech support calls now...
User: "I have pop-ups taking the whole screen and playing ads for beer and cars all the time. Then something happens so my mouse disappears and things move all over the screen by themselves. Is this a new virus?"
Tech Support: "No, that's the Denver Broncos game. What's the score?"
Is the problem really DPI? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Academics can worry about which is the "real" problem.
In the real world we have to address which problem we can solve.
More like on hold, but still present (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Link above the article (Score:2)
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]
30 seconds on Google (Score:2)
Fresnel Lens (Score:2)
Just put a Fresnel lens in front of the display. It worked for WALL-E.
Re: (Score:2)
It worked in Brazil [imdb.com] first.
The good news is, "sharpness" isn't critical... (Score:5, Interesting)
...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)
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
Apple Monitors? (Score:2)
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)
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)
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)
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
Set the computer to use half the native resolution (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
It's obvious (Score:2)
All you need to do is give them one of these [3dlens.com].
Age besets me (Score:4, Interesting)
Change your font DPI/size (Score:2)
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.
Why? (Score:2)
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"
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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.... (Score:2)
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).
TVs are cheaper then monitors... (Score:2)
Really, get some glasses (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
It comes down to manufacturing issues (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
I never did understand (Score:3, Interesting)
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)
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
Re: (Score:2)
I guess affordable means approximately the same price as the standard issue 17" 1280x1024 monitors you get in most offices.
How to force a modeline? (Score:2)
Many monitors look good at exactly 1/2 resolution. Get a 20+" monitor with 1920x1080 resolution and run it at 960x540.
If Windows' Display Properties doesn't automatically show a modeline for 960x540, how can I force this res?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And the applications? (Score:3, Informative)
If you're on a Windows box, you can achieve the same overall effect by increasing the size of your icons and fonts.
Windows has preferences for large fonts and icons, but not all third-party non-free applications respect them.
Re: (Score:2)
This is imho only a partial solution. You can enable larger font and icons, yet not everything scales properly. You will quickly run into applications that don't look right. Same goes (more so) for the DPI scaling--in Windows 7 display scaling operates differently from 149% to 150%, so >= 150% many programs don't look right. (additionally many 3d games lose their cursor when dpi scaling is >= 150%, at least with my nvidia card)
Zooming works well for many websites, but many pages just crap out and beco
Not really (Score:2)
Sure, you can change these things, but most apps are meant to be run at a typical resolution and don't look nearly as good otherwise. You also spend half your day fiddling with the resolution to get it just right.
I use this with Firefox on my "primary" laptop, which has a 15" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. It's cool that FF remembers the setting for each page. It's annoying to have to set each page. Sadly, when I dock at work, I use a 24" monitor and then everything has to get set back (thank goodness f
Re: (Score:2)
A quick tip for most internet browsers is that you can change the size of things on a web page by holding control and then using the scroll wheel on your mouse.
Having that go off when trying to control-clicking things in Firefox to bring up a new tab has made me absolutely loath that feature. I really should turn it off someday rather than swearing every time it happens.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Are you really this stupid or are you just trolling?
You mean there's an actual difference between the two? Interesting hypothesis, but I've yet to see any data to back it up.