LCD flat panel feedback please?

[KJ]

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

Thanks,
KJ

(just building now...)
MSI K8N Neo4 Platinum (socket 939)
1 GB PC 3200 Dual Channel Mushkin RAM
Athlon64 3000+
Chaintech 6200 PCIe nForce4
Maxtor 120GB HD
Plextor 716SA DVD/CD burner
Raidmax case and PSU, 420w

 

[OldBoy]

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.
In Word just zoom in to suite your need!
In Windows choose a Theme you like best.

Gr. Jan

 

[KJ]

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.

Yeah, was planning on that. Thanks.

In Word just zoom in to suite your need!

I do that already. That doesn't address toolbars, menus, etc., in
Word or while surfing. When you spend 12hrs a day looking at a screen
eye strain needs to be minimized. Tiny-assed menus = A Bad Thing. I
have to access menus nearly continuously while writing/researching.

Again, using the "Large Fonts" setting in high res helps in this regard
but causes programs to display improperly, especially config menus and
so forth.

KJ

 

[Wayne Fulton]

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

It would be informative to know what size CRT you now run at 800x600.
It would mean rather different things if 15 inch or 19 inch. 15 inch
might be considered normal at 800x600, but if 19 inch, you must have some
serious eye problems, certainly it would be a special case then. But as
the screen gets larger (inches), the screen size (pixels) can also get
larger, and the text may stay the same size.

You surely need to visit a store that sells LCD displays, and examine
them, see what they look like. They probably have a wall of them, all
turned on.

If you want the text larger, buy a larger monitor. Buy a 19 inch LCD
which is also 1280x1024, but if a LCD, it is actually a full 19 inches
diagonal, where a 19 inch CRT is only about 18 inches. So the screen is
bigger, and everything on it (the 1280 pixels) is slightly bigger than a
19 inch CRT. And substantially bigger than a 17 inch CRT, which is only
16 inches. Or a 15 inch CRT which is about 13.8 inches diagonal. That
13.8 inches is only 72% the size of a 19 inch LCD. 800 pixels is 62% of
1280 pixels, so this is ballpark same size, almost. Probably a little
smaller than you are used to, but my own opinion is that 1280x1024 seems
about the right size on a 19 LCD, much like 800x600 might seem right on a
15 inch CRT.

However, the thin LCD screen will likely be several inches farther behind
the keyboard, so you will likely be several inches farther from it. My 19
inch is nearly a foot farther than arms reach. Seems great to me.

But I do use Large Fonts. I've always used Large Fonts (on any 17 or 19
inch screen) and the only program that gives me any trouble is TaxCut.
Word and the browser are absolutely no problem. I simply never give it a
seconds thought (except to wonder why TaxCut cant get it right).

Operating my 19 inch LCD at other sizes than native (like 1024x768) is
somewhat fuzzy, somewhat worse than a CRT. No really good, but not
absolutely terrible, in that it is still very readable, just not crisp or
attractive. Certainly not like native, which is absolutely wonderful.
I'd say not recommended.

Be aware that for a LCD display, the XP Control Panel- Display -
Appearance - Effects has the CLEAR TYPE choice, which is for LCD.
Text is no bigger, but more bold and clear.

 

[John Doe]

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but
am a little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.
I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a
day in Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts
of 1024x768 res [on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use
"large fonts" makes many programs display improperly. Therefore
I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain and get nice-sized menus and
fonts. The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's
great for looking at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my
purposes. Can anyone attest to how these monitors look at that
res in terms of menus and such? Are the tool bars and menus
tiny? Or does anyone know what they look like in a lower res
than the native?

Best to buy a LCD with DVI input: crisp and steady display.

Yeah, was planning on that. Thanks.

In Word just zoom in to suite your need!

I do that already. That doesn't address toolbars, menus, etc.,
in Word or while surfing. When you spend 12hrs a day looking at a
screen eye strain needs to be minimized. Tiny-assed menus = A Bad
Thing. I have to access menus nearly continuously while
writing/researching. Again, using the "Large Fonts" setting in high
res helps in this regard but causes programs to display improperly,
especially config menus and so forth.

Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
adjust display settings to suit.

Assuming Internet Explorer.
Try adding the fonts setting button to your browser toolbar. Using
1024x768 and increasing font size will produce bold fonts in smaller
font sizes. Try experimenting with Accessibility settings
(Tools-Internet Options-Accessibility).

Good luck.

 

[KJ]

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

It would be informative to know what size CRT you now run at 800x600.

17" / 16" viewable

You surely need to visit a store that sells LCD displays, and examine
them, see what they look like. They probably have a wall of them, all
turned on.

Yeah, I plan to, but wanted feedback from owners as well.

If you want the text larger, buy a larger monitor.

Pocketbook says a 17" LCD ($250-$300) is all I can afford. I just spent
nearly $1000 buying the components for a new system I'm building, and my
CRT works fine, but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
my new graphics card.

[...] but my own opinion is that 1280x1024 seems
about the right size on a 19 LCD, much like 800x600 might seem right on a
15 inch CRT.

IKWYM, I used to have a 21" CRT years ago. But seeing that I have to
stick to a 17" LCD... I was wondering what Word processors are like in
the native res.

I was reading an article in PC World that was comparing CRT vs LCD and
they made the point that with CRT (as we all know) when you increase the
res the fonts and so forth shrink, but they didn't say the same about
LCD so I was wondering too if that still holds.

But I do use Large Fonts. I've always used Large Fonts (on any 17 or 19
inch screen) and the only program that gives me any trouble is TaxCut.
Word and the browser are absolutely no problem. I simply never give it a
seconds thought (except to wonder why TaxCut cant get it right).

It's been awhile since I used it. Maybe I'll try it again.

Operating my 19 inch LCD at other sizes than native (like 1024x768) is
somewhat fuzzy, somewhat worse than a CRT. No really good, but not
absolutely terrible, in that it is still very readable, just not crisp or
attractive. Certainly not like native, which is absolutely wonderful.
I'd say not recommended.

Thanks for that. That's what I wondered and is what I was hearing. How
long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)

Be aware that for a LCD display, the XP Control Panel- Display -
Appearance - Effects has the CLEAR TYPE choice, which is for LCD.
Text is no bigger, but more bold and clear.

Thanks for the tip and input.

KJ

 

[KJ]

Windows display settings are very adjustable, not just large fonts.
If your monitor (current or future) can handle 1024x768 at an eye
pleasing refresh rate, you should IMO use that for browsing and
adjust display settings to suit.

The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

As for my CRT I already have it adjusted the way I like it.

KJ

 

[Ruel Smith]

I want to get a flat panel for the new system I'm building, but am a
little concerned about the whole "native resolution" issue.

I'm not a gamer -- I'm a researcher/writer so I spend 12/hr a day in
Word or surfing. I don't like the small menus and fonts of 1024x768 res
[on CRTs] and changing the Win setting to use "large fonts" makes many
programs display improperly. Therefore I use 800x600 to avoid eye strain
and get nice-sized menus and fonts.

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking
at graphics, I'm not so sure it's great for my purposes. Can anyone
attest to how these monitors look at that res in terms of menus and
such? Are the tool bars and menus tiny? Or does anyone know what they
look like in a lower res than the native?

17" and 19" monitors have a 1280x1024 native resolution. A 19" would display
that resolution much larger, probably @ WYSIWYG resolution. The 17" would,
IMO, be rather small for such a resolution.

 

[John Doe]

The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

According to your other replies, apparently your problems have
changed. You don't necessarily want easier to see, you just want to
use your DVI output. You don't have a problem with large fonts at
higher resolutions. And now you are on a budget.

I have a big beautiful 19 inch perfectly flat Trinitron monitor and
a secondary 17 inch monitor. I had read that text wasn't crisp on
Trinitrons, but mine is very crisp. From time to time, I catch a
glimpse of those two infamous horizontal lines. It's no worse than
amusing.

If you want lots of screen space, if you really want easier to see
text and less eyestrain, use dual monitors. If I were using my PC
for work, there's no way I would do without multiple monitors.

 

[Hackworth]

The 17" LCDs native res is 1280x1024.

Which for me was too small for prolonged use and tough on my eyeballs. So, I
sold that one and bought a Sony 18" LCD... that extra size made the default
1280x1024 just right for me. Prices are lower now for LCDs compared to when
I bought mine, so you may want to spring for a 19" model instead... the
native resolution is still 1280x1024, so it will be even easier on the eyes.

 

[Wayne Fulton]

17" / 16" viewable

That's pretty large for 800x600. It would seem very unnatural to me. A 17
LCD is only an inch larger diagonally than the 17 CRT, so you'd see a big
reduction at 1280x1024, but Large Fonts will put a lot back. Large fonts
wont change icon or image size, but it will also increase menu and toolbar
text sizes. I would suggest your testing now by just changing your current
CRT screen to 1280x1024 for a few minutes. Maybe Large Fonts too. It should
be a close comparison except for the one inch, which will help the LCD about
6%. And I would bet on the LCD showing sharper more clear text. But I think
this size comparison is going to be the same ballpark, and it may end the
question if you like the 800x600 size.

but I'd like a LCD for space and to utilize the DVI on
my new graphics card.

I didnt see the slightest difference in DVI as opposed to VGA. I'm using a
19 inch Viewsonic VX910 on a Matrox G550 video, both have both capabilities
with two cables. I'm not a gamer either, and I consider the Matrox card to
be great for sharp text. Theoretically I suppose there is a lot to be said
for DVI, but practically, I noticed no difference at all. DVI is no big
deal.

IKWYM, I used to have a 21" CRT years ago. But seeing that I have to
stick to a 17" LCD... I was wondering what Word processors are like in
the native res.

In my case, Word 2003 is extremely normal and fine here... 12 pt Garamond
font at 100% zoom, on 19 inch LCD 1280x1024 native, with Large Fonts 120
dpi. On the screen, a 12 inch ruler measures it as four lines per inch
(prints a bit over 5 lines per inch). The screen text is larger than it
prints, due to the Large Fonts. All other programs are perfectly fine too.
17 inches would of course be smaller, 11% I think. That's why I bought 19
inches.

I've used only Large Fonts for at least 9 or 10 years (probably much longer,
I just cant remember that far back), and it is extremely rare to see any
little ignorable issue. There were more issues years ago, but not today.
For me, only TaxCut is a nuisance with Large Fonts, and it's bearable.
Large Font is essential here.

I am often sitting back about 36 inches from the LCD, feet up, can barely
reach the mouse on the edge of the desk, and the monitor is about 20 inches
back from edge. It's great, extremely readable to me (I use the top part of
trifocals then). But to me, the 1280x1024 is important to see most of a
full page in Word (maybe 3/4 page), and to have more desktop space
generally, for access to other programs. Your 17 inch 800x600 situation is
surely quite different than this.

I was reading an article in PC World that was comparing CRT vs LCD and
they made the point that with CRT (as we all know) when you increase the
res the fonts and so forth shrink, but they didn't say the same about
LCD so I was wondering too if that still holds.

Yes, it is exactly the same for LCD, pixels are pixels. If for example
(easy numbers), you change the screen from 800x600 to 1600x1200 pixels,
everyhing on the screen will become half size, but the screen area will be
four times more desktop area. Same for either CRT or LCD.

Thanks for that. That's what I wondered and is what I was hearing. How
long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)

About two months. This one is $449 at CompUSA now (after $50 rebate). I'm
getting very used to it now and really like it. It was a huge shock at
first, LCD color isnt very accurate for critically creating images. It can
be tweaked some, but it just aint the same as a CRT. However, this simply
doesnt matter at all for anything else but critical images. The LCD is
fantastic for text and reading and such, any kind of general work, and web
images are plenty good enough.

 

[KJ]

Which for me was too small for prolonged use and tough on my eyeballs.

This is what I think will be the case for me. Let's face it, after 10-12
hours your eyeballs get tired even when the res is perfect! ;-D ...
Straining is no fun. Thanks for speaking up.

So, I
sold that one and bought a Sony 18" LCD... that extra size made the default
1280x1024 just right for me. Prices are lower now for LCDs compared to when
I bought mine, so you may want to spring for a 19" model instead... the
native resolution is still 1280x1024, so it will be even easier on the eyes.

I just spent quite a few hours looking and I can get a 'cheap' 19" for
about the same price as the 17" I would get, with the only real diff
being the 17" has a faster response time (12ms vs the 21ms of the 19").
Since I'm not a gamer this isn't really a concern.

Tomorrow I'll go to BestBuy or Frys or somewhere to look at some first
hand bearing in mind what all you good people have said. (Though I'll
be buying online unless I see a killer deal somewhere.)

Thanks for helping.
KJ

 

[KJ]

That's pretty large for 800x600. It would seem very unnatural to me.

I don't sit right up close to it. Since I sit here all day I often kick
back with the keyboard on my lap and my feet up on the keyboard tray.
I also don't like to have to stick my face in something that's emitting
radiation. But as the night wears on and my eyes get tired, that's
when the 800x600 really helps.

A 17
LCD is only an inch larger diagonally than the 17 CRT, so you'd see a big
reduction at 1280x1024, but Large Fonts will put a lot back. Large fonts
wont change icon or image size, but it will also increase menu and toolbar
text sizes. I would suggest your testing now by just changing your current
CRT screen to 1280x1024 for a few minutes.

Good idea except it doesn't support that res.

I didnt see the slightest difference in DVI as opposed to VGA. I'm using a
19 inch Viewsonic VX910 on a Matrox G550 video, both have both capabilities
with two cables. I'm not a gamer either, and I consider the Matrox card to
be great for sharp text. Theoretically I suppose there is a lot to be said
for DVI, but practically, I noticed no difference at all. DVI is no big
deal.

I just read that from someone else in a review at NewEgg. Said he hooked
up two monitors (both LCD same model he got together) to a card that
supports two monitors; one connected analog and the other DVI. Said he
was disappointed that there was such a slight diff in picture quality
even with them sitting side by side. But I still want DVI b/c it will
become the new standard and I don't change my equipment that often.
However that's what's tacking cost on. If I didn't want the DVI I could
get a decent 17" for a lot less. Oh well... it pushed me up to the
cheap-end of the 19" bracket. (As stated in another post after I did
more shopping....)

In my case, Word 2003 is extremely normal and fine here... 12 pt Garamond
font at 100% zoom, on 19 inch LCD 1280x1024 native, with Large Fonts 120
dpi. On the screen, a 12 inch ruler measures it as four lines per inch

Yeah, that sounds good.

(prints a bit over 5 lines per inch). The screen text is larger than it
prints, due to the Large Fonts. All other programs are perfectly fine too.
17 inches would of course be smaller, 11% I think. That's why I bought 19
inches.

Yeap. Think I'll have to go that route too... maybe hunt for rebate
deals.

I've used only Large Fonts for at least 9 or 10 years (probably much longer,
I just cant remember that far back), and it is extremely rare to see any
little ignorable issue. There were more issues years ago, but not today.
For me, only TaxCut is a nuisance with Large Fonts, and it's bearable.
Large Font is essential here.

You know what's funny, I used Large Fonts too with high res for years,
then suddenly they were causing me problems and I can't remember now
what program it was, but something I used all the time. It became a
critical issue that I had to stop using them. (This was like... maybe 5
years back that I stopped.) But also I'm switching to XP with my new
system (finally lettin' old 98 retire). So I'm sure Large Fonts will be
fine with the high res, now that I think about it... it was probably a
98 incompatibility glitch with whatever I was using.

I am often sitting back about 36 inches from the LCD, feet up, can barely
reach the mouse on the edge of the desk, and the monitor is about 20 inches
back from edge. It's great, extremely readable to me (I use the top part of
trifocals then). But to me, the 1280x1024 is important to see most of a
full page in Word (maybe 3/4 page), and to have more desktop space
generally, for access to other programs. Your 17 inch 800x600 situation is
surely quite different than this.

Yeah, see you sit back too.

[...] How
long have you had your LCD? (I'm thinking they must be working on
improving that single drawback to LCD technology.)

About two months. This one is $449 at CompUSA now (after $50 rebate). I'm
getting very used to it now and really like it. It was a huge shock at
first, LCD color isnt very accurate for critically creating images.

So I've read. Luckily that isn't a relevant issue for me.

It can
be tweaked some, but it just aint the same as a CRT. However, this simply
doesnt matter at all for anything else but critical images. The LCD is
fantastic for text and reading and such, any kind of general work, and web
images are plenty good enough.

Sounds great. I think I know what I have to do now... look for a good
deal!

Thanks again.
KJ

 

[KJ]

KJ ([email protected]) wrote:

The native res of the LCDs is 1280x1024! Though that's great for looking

17" and 19" monitors have a 1280x1024 native resolution. A 19" would display
that resolution much larger, probably @ WYSIWYG resolution. The 17" would,
IMO, be rather small for such a resolution.

I'm in agreement with you.

KJ

 

[Wayne Fulton]

Speaking of my screen size and 4 lines per inch of 12 pt Garamond in Word.
I said all other programs were fine too, but maybe should note that not all
programs use 12 point font, at least by default, so some do appear smaller of
course. But still very readable. I see a few of them measure about 4.5
lines/inch, 10 pt I assume. Many programs offer some type of font size or
zoom, but I simply never bother, it is unnecessary. But Large Fonts seems
necessary on larger screens.

But I still want DVI b/c it will
become the new standard and I don't change my equipment that often.
However that's what's tacking cost on.

I was a bit the opposite. Before I realized it doesnt matter, I assumed DVI
was better, and I am using DVI on the new system. But I specifically wanted a
card also with VGA. Sometimes things happen requiring swapping gear to get
going again, and I had a couple of CRT sitting around, but no second LCD.

DVI is fine, but VGA is excellent too. It is obvious that the LCD doesnt heat
the room as much as the old 19 CRT. Easier on the UPS too, more minutes.

Sounds great. I think I know what I have to do now... look for a good
deal!

Dollars will easily solve almost any computer problem.

A monitor is what we see, our perception of the computer, and seems more
important than something like a disk or memory that we dont perceive. If we
sit in front of the monitor for 12 hours/day, man, that is an overwhelming
reason to indulge ourselves.

 

[Peter]

I don't sit right up close to it. Since I sit here all day I often kick
back with the keyboard on my lap and my feet up on the keyboard tray.
I also don't like to have to stick my face in something that's emitting
radiation. But as the night wears on and my eyes get tired, that's
when the 800x600 really helps.

I use a computer quite a lot. Not as long as 12 hours a day, but can
easily sit at mine for 3 or 4 hour stretches and only 2 feet from the
monitor without any eye tiredness. The only time I've noticed problems
such as those has been when the monitor refresh rate has been set
incorrectly. Have you tried playing around with the refresh rate
settings at all?

Just a thought.

<snip>

 

[KJ]

Speaking of my screen size and 4 lines per inch of 12 pt Garamond in Word.
I said all other programs were fine too, but maybe should note that not all
programs use 12 point font, at least by default, so some do appear smaller of
course. But still very readable. I see a few of them measure about 4.5
lines/inch, 10 pt I assume. Many programs offer some type of font size or
zoom, but I simply never bother, it is unnecessary. But Large Fonts seems
necessary on larger screens.

Agreed and thanks for the line measurements.

I was a bit the opposite. Before I realized it doesnt matter, I assumed DVI
was better, and I am using DVI on the new system. But I specifically wanted a
card also with VGA. Sometimes things happen requiring swapping gear to get
going again, and I had a couple of CRT sitting around, but no second LCD.

Definitely and my card has both. And I'll hang on to the CRT for the
same reason. Emergency or if the LCD ever needs to go in for fixin'.

Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg. It's $299. MAN! It just went up $10
overnight! (Went to get the link.) I hate it when that happens!
http://www.newegg.com/app/ViewProductDesc.asp?description=24-024-502&depa=0

What's the dot pitch on yours?

DVI is fine, but VGA is excellent too. It is obvious that the LCD doesnt heat
the room as much as the old 19 CRT. Easier on the UPS too, more minutes.


Dollars will easily solve almost any computer problem.

Ain't it the truth!

A monitor is what we see, our perception of the computer, and seems more
important than something like a disk or memory that we dont perceive. If we
sit in front of the monitor for 12 hours/day, man, that is an overwhelming
reason to indulge ourselves.

That's a most excellent point!

Thanks again,
KJ

 

[Larc]

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 08:25:29 -0800, KJ ([email protected]) wrote:

| Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg. It's $299. MAN! It just went up $10
| overnight! (Went to get the link.) I hate it when that happens!

Newegg's prices are often up and down like a yo-yo. If you don't like
the price today, check back tomorrow! ;-)

They tend to play with shipping charges, so price changes can
sometimes be misleading unless shipping is taken into account. A
recent Newegg purchase I made actually netted out to less when the
base price increased because the shipping charge was reduced by a
greater amount than the increase.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

 

[Wayne Fulton]

Thinking of the Polyview at NewEgg.

NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are generally good.
My complaint is that their shipping is both expensive and slow (relative to
others), so I always try to shop around first. But, I did buy much of my last
computer from them, for the convenience.

What's the dot pitch on yours?

Not stated, but dot pitch is only a CRT specification, about the spacing of
phosphor dots. This sensor (phosphor dot) is not aligned with the video
pixels of the signal. Even if by miracle, the spacing were exactly the same
(it's not), the phosphor is still likely half a pixel low or to the right of
the video pixel, so the pixel is straddling phosphor dots. The CRT screen
resolution 1280x1024 pixel signal is not related to the phosphor dot pitch
which attempts to reproduce it. So you do want dot pitch to be small on CRT,
that being your best shot at it.

On a LCD, the only meaningful number is the native resolution. That is also
the exact definition and location of the LCD transistor photo sensors. A
sensor is exactly a video pixel, by definition. The so-called dot pitch
(spacing between these pixels?) simply has no alternative but to be in perfect
alignment with the native resolution, the 1280x1024 pixels. This perfect
alignment is why LCD is so sharp for text (at native resolution). 1280x1024
pixels is all we need to know.

At non-native resolutions, then LCD starts acting more like CRT, with video
pixels straddling photo sensors, and sharpness degrades substantially, more so
than for CRT.

We could easily compute the LCD dot pitch, and some ads do. We know the
1280x1024 pixels, and we know the 19 inch diagonal, thus the geometry. This
would show a 17 1280x1024 LCD has a 11% smaller dot pitch than the 19
1280x1024 LCD, but we already knew that (if same resolution) by just comparing
the 17 and 19 inch sizes. Same number of pixels in a smaller area is always
higher resolution, but a smaller picture.

We cannot compute the CRT dot pitch, as it depends only on how the phosphor
dots were built. So its value is stated. Simply different concepts.

Even if the LCD dot pitch computation were larger than the CRT (possibly is,
the LCD spacing will obviously be whatever the 1280x1024 pixels define it to
be), the LCD has the overwhelming advantage of being perfectly aligned, which
is better even than a smaller dot pitch on the CRT trying to show 1280x1024
pixels in random manner. Perfect alignment has much to be said for it.
Perfect is all we need, and the most we can hope for. Now, if they could just
get the color right.

 

[John Doe]

....

NewEgg is a great place, lots of selection, and prices are
generally good. My complaint is that their shipping is both
expensive and slow (relative to others), so I always try to shop
around first.

Me too. Doesn't matter how wonderful a particular store is.