Does 1024x768 look weird on a 19" LCD monitor?

[Sol]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

 

[Conor]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

Depends if it's a widescreen or not. If it isn't, it won't. If it is,
it will.

Also, running the LCD at non native resolutions gives you a blurred
image. You'd be better off running it at the native resolution and
upping the font sizes.

 

[the_slay_er]

Depends if it's a widescreen or not. If it isn't, it won't. If it is,
it will.

Also, running the LCD at non native resolutions gives you a blurred
image. You'd be better off running it at the native resolution and
upping the font sizes.

looks fine at that res on my 19inch lcd.. (not widescreen).

--
regards dave and katie the dbox and starview people in the uk !
http://www.dbox2repair.co.uk/
for all your dbox2 needs
we guarantee our work and only offer the highest standards.


..

 

[Phisherman]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

For the best picture set your display resolution to match the native
resolution of your LCD. Mine is set to 1600x1200 and some complain
my desktop icons are too small. I use/need a pair of cheap 2.25x
glasses for monitor use and take frequent eye breaks (benefits for
growing old).

 

[John Doe]

For the best picture set your display resolution to match the native
resolution of your LCD.

From glancing at the resolutions, looks like the LCD monitor and video
card resolutions don't match. That was a while ago, and it was just in
passing. I could be wrong.

I use a pair of cheap 2.25x [reading] glasses for monitor use

Cheap monitor size upgrade

 

[Frank McCoy]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

If not widescreen, then it will do fine.
However you'd do *much* better to run it at native resolution.
Things will be incredibly so much clearer.
Otherwise, it's kind of like pasting a piece of waxed-paper over the
screen and looking through THAT.

OTOH, 1024x768 *is* native resolution on some really *cheap* 19" models.

 

[Frank McCoy]

For the best picture set your display resolution to match the native
resolution of your LCD. Mine is set to 1600x1200 and some complain
my desktop icons are too small. I use/need a pair of cheap 2.25x
glasses for monitor use and take frequent eye breaks (benefits for
growing old).

Why do THAT?
Try this:
Right-click on the desktop.
Seleict "Properties"
In the Display Properties program, select the "Settings" tab.
Select the "Advanced" button.
Under "Display" and "DPI", select "Large Size".
Hit "OK" twice, and exit.

That's what the setting is FOR.

 

[Bob Knowlden]

The normal 17" monitors that I have seen have a native resolution of
1280X1024, which is a 5:4 ratio. 1024X768 is 4:3. Text and images will
appear slightly stretched vertically, but it's not a large effect. (The
image is 16/15, or 1.067, times as tall as it should be.)

Good 19" monitors that are not widescreen are also 1280X1024.

Return address scrambled. Replace nkbob with bobkn.

 

[D.half.blood.prince]

Depends if it's a widescreen or not. If it isn't, it won't. If it is,
it will.

Also, running the LCD at non native resolutions gives you a blurred
image. You'd be better off running it at the native resolution and
upping the font sizes.

well 1024x768 may be the native resolutions of many cheap LCDs but a
19'' stuff looks good only on 1024x968 resolution.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

OTOH, 1024x768 *is* native resolution on some really *cheap* 19" models.

I would think that the cost of LCD panels would depend on
manufacturing volumes. As 1024x768 19" panels would be relatively
rare, if they exist at all, I would expect them to cost quite a lot
more than a standard 1280x1024 19" panel.

In fact Google shows quite a few enquiries from users with poor
eyesight. None have been able to find such a monitor.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[spodosaurus]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

Personally, unless there's something precluding you from doing it, I'd
buy a large 21" CRT and set the resolution to whatever suits.

Ari

--
spammage trappage: remove the underscores to reply
Many people around the world are waiting for a marrow transplant. Please
volunteer to be a marrow donor and literally save someone's life:
http://www.abmdr.org.au/
http://www.marrow.org/

 

[Frank McCoy]

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Franc Zabkar

I would think that the cost of LCD panels would depend on
manufacturing volumes. As 1024x768 19" panels would be relatively
rare, if they exist at all, I would expect them to cost quite a lot
more than a standard 1280x1024 19" panel.

In fact Google shows quite a few enquiries from users with poor
eyesight. None have been able to find such a monitor.

If you have poor eyesight, you want a monitor with *MORE* resolution,
not less! You then adjust your icon-size and font-size to be larger;
and suddenly things are *MUCH* easier to read!

(I know!)

An 18-point font is *MUCH* easier to read at 1600x1200, than a 14-point
font at 1024x768; yet both are about exactly the same size on the
screen. Clearer, sharper, less jagged, and FAR easier on the eyes.

Why anybody would choose a less capable monitor, other than sheer
ignorance, is beyond me. It's not THAT hard, even in Wind-holes to
change font and Icon sizes.

With my present system, it looks almost exactly like a 1024x768
"standard" resolution monitor would ... from about six feet away.

Get up close however, at normal operator-distance, and the improvement
is *incredible*. Better, probably, than the difference between an old
analog TV and modern "High Definition".

 

[Frank McCoy]

Personally, unless there's something precluding you from doing it, I'd
buy a large 21" CRT and set the resolution to whatever suits.

I dropped my old 21" CRT in favor of a 20.1" LCD. I had (and actually
still have) three of the rather expensive 21" monitors; which I loved
.... until I got the LCD, that is.

The LCD, at 1680x1050 native resolution looks *far* sharper than any of
the 21" monitors ever did, even at resolutions of 2048x1536! And yes,
all three monitors not only supported that resolution, but their
pixel-density was sharp enough to handle that. However, when you add in
screen-effects, tiny misconvergence, slight mis-focus from
corner-to-corner, and similar defects that CRT displays just *cannot*
avoid; yet that digital displays just do not have, the result is a much
sharper image at a lower resolution with an LCD panel. And *modern* LCD
panels don't have the color-depth limitations that early models did.
Side-by-side comparisons of exactly the same picture; and the LCD I have
so far outshines the old CRTs (yes, even incredibly expensive 21"
models) that I'd truly hate to go back.

My only BEEF is that I did (and still do) prefer the 3:4 aspect-ratio of
a CRT to the 16:9 "wide-screen" ratio of the LCD panel. Too few things
(including most especially things like digital photographs and TV
displays) are native in wide-format. HDTV is, of course, *IF* you can
afford the high price of such a TV-tuner. I expect however, over time,
that factor will tend to reverse itself as more people get wide-screen
displays; and wide-format becomes the standard.

 

[DaveW]

The NATIVE RESOLUTION (the resolution required by the screen's electrical
and physical design) for a 19" LCD is 1280 x 1024. Other chosen resolutions
will be distorting the image.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Franc Zabkar

If you have poor eyesight, you want a monitor with *MORE* resolution,
not less! You then adjust your icon-size and font-size to be larger;
and suddenly things are *MUCH* easier to read!

(I know!)

An 18-point font is *MUCH* easier to read at 1600x1200, than a 14-point
font at 1024x768; yet both are about exactly the same size on the
screen. Clearer, sharper, less jagged, and FAR easier on the eyes.

That's what I do. Nevertheless, people have been enquiring about
low-res 19" monitors, perhaps for the wrong reason, but they appear
not to exist.

- Franc Zabkar

 

[Frank McCoy]

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Franc Zabkar

That's what I do. Nevertheless, people have been enquiring about
low-res 19" monitors, perhaps for the wrong reason, but they appear
not to exist.

Thankfully ....
Still, you CAN run the more capable monitors at that resolution.
It will just look CRAPPY compared to even a 17" CRT monitor.

.... Thus perpetuating the myth that CRT monitors are "better".

 

[Frank McCoy]

The NATIVE RESOLUTION (the resolution required by the screen's electrical
and physical design) for a 19" LCD is 1280 x 1024. Other chosen resolutions
will be distorting the image.

And look really crappy in comparison.
If your icons or fonts are too small, pick larger icons, pick larger
fonts, or increase the DPI of both.

The improvement will be *incredible*.

 

[Terry]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

http://www.halley.cc/stuff/dragnifier.html

Try this if your eyes are going bad.

 

[Linux Geek]

My eyes aren't that great, so this is the resolution I currently use on my
17" LCD.

Does anyone know if this resolution will stretch or squish text and images
on a 19"?

Welcome to my world. Ageing eyes are a drag. Monitor should be fine at
that resolution. I have an Acer AL1916 ( 19" LCD monitor ) and only use it
at 1024x768 OR lower resolution.

Looks fine to me. People with good vision don't realize that the little
details they notice as being out of whack just blow by those of us whose
vision is not that great.

Short version.... it should work just fine.

--

__________________________________________________________________
Linux Geek

Saying that XP is the most stable MS OS is like saying that
asparagus is the most articulate vegetable. (Dave Barry)