[geeks] LCD displays

[Joshua D Boyd]

On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 12:20:23AM -0500, Bill Bradford wrote:
> On Tue, May 28, 2002 at 09:50:23PM -0700, Gregory Leblanc wrote:
> > Uh, 1600x1200 is low resolution on a 21" screen, as far as I'm
> > concerned.  I demand 1600x1200 from the 17"-18" LCDs that I buy, but I'm
> > a monitor snob.
> > 	Greg
> 
> Jeez.  I run 1280x1024 on a 21".
> 
> (or 1152x900, on the one at work.. no need to make myself need glasses 
>  sooner..)

I bumped the school's Dell machine to 1600x1200, and began wishing that there
was some supported resolution in between. I don't know what it is, but 
1600x1200 on that monitor was worse than 1280x1024 on my bargain rack 17".
I'd have to have them side by side, but I think that 1600x1200 on that thing
was nearly as bad as 1600x1200 on the 17" monitor.  But, I consider 1152x900
an absolute bare minimum, and wish that I could sustain 1600x1200 at home,
because I do really find the extra real estate usefull.

-- 
Joshua D. Boyd