24" Monitor, not LCD?

[Doc]

So, as I'm looking for a 24" for the "old" eyes, only need
1024 x 768 or a bit more, SUGGESTIONS??
Saw the SONY. Very nice monitor, but seemed to be 'stretching'
the aspect and I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

Anyone care to make a recommendation from experience? Many thanks.

 

[Not Gimpy Anymore]

So, as I'm looking for a 24" for the "old" eyes, only need
1024 x 768 or a bit more, SUGGESTIONS??
Saw the SONY. Very nice monitor, but seemed to be 'stretching'
the aspect and I'm not sure if that is good or bad.

Anyone care to make a recommendation from experience? Many thanks.

I suggest caution if the stated is the major reason for a change. When a
display gets
"larger" it typically maintains the same resolution capability (spot size) -
which means
that running 1024 by 768 pixel format on that size may well have
objectionable spaces
between the scan lines. Do try to look at the candidates first hand, running
the pixel
format you plan to use to see if it looks OK.
You may want to consider looking for a larger size "TV/Monitor", which is
less likely
to have the above issue, because TV's do not have as fine a spot size.
Sorry, can't make a recommendation from experience - these eyes are still
going strong
after 60+ years, in spite of Glaucoma.

Regards,
NGA

 

[Doc Rick]

Not Gimpy Anymore typed this:

I suggest caution if the stated is the major reason for a change. When a
display gets
"larger" it typically maintains the same resolution capability (spot size) -
which means
that running 1024 by 768 pixel format on that size may well have
objectionable spaces
between the scan lines. Do try to look at the candidates first hand, running
the pixel
format you plan to use to see if it looks OK.
You may want to consider looking for a larger size "TV/Monitor", which is
less likely
to have the above issue, because TV's do not have as fine a spot size.
Sorry, can't make a recommendation from experience - these eyes are still
going strong
after 60+ years, in spite of Glaucoma.

Regards,
NGA

Thanks... It is the "candidates" that have me going... as I mentioned,
the SONY looks very nice and I could go 1280 - but thought of the TV
issue... they are Sooooo large, the SONY sits nicely and takes up about
as much space as my 20" - so it boils down to a good candidate to go
look at ... thanks.

 

[Not Gimpy Anymore]

Not Gimpy Anymore typed this:



Thanks... It is the "candidates" that have me going... as I mentioned, the
SONY looks very nice and I could go 1280 - but thought of the TV issue...
they are Sooooo large, the SONY sits nicely and takes up about
as much space as my 20" - so it boils down to a good candidate to go look
at ... thanks.

I think if you look around you will find some TV/Monitors in sizes from
15" and up, in LCD types. It is true that the CRT types are much larger,
and you did mention CRT, not LCD - but you may find it interesting to
reconsider the LCD alternatives - excluding cost, of course.... A 20"
CRT would serve fairly well, but you may well see the "space between
the lines" and have to deal with it when you move to 24"...

NGA

 

[J. Clarke]

Not Gimpy Anymore typed this:



Thanks... It is the "candidates" that have me going... as I mentioned,
the SONY looks very nice and I could go 1280 - but thought of the TV
issue... they are Sooooo large, the SONY sits nicely and takes up about
as much space as my 20" - so it boils down to a good candidate to go
look at ... thanks.

Is there any particular reason you don't want an LCD? I have a friend with
major vision problems and he just replaced his 21" Hitachi CRT with a 21"
Samsung LCD, which he says is noticeably easier for him to read. Remember
also that with an LCD you gain about an inch of display area over a CRT of
the same nominal size--CRT size is the size from corner to corner of the
outer edge of the tube, not the actual image size--and before anyone flies
off the handle at the CRT manufacturers, this method of measurement is
mandated by some consumer protection law or other--the manufacturers don't
have any say in the matter.

If you don't absolutely have to have an ATI or nvidia video board, you might
consider going to a Matrox--they have a very convenient zoom feature (that
ATI _used_ to have--the hardware still supports it but they've hosed up the
interface beyond redemption) that he finds exceedingly helpful. Nvidia may
have such a feature as well, haven't run one of their boards in so long
that I don't know their capabilities anymore.

 

[chrisv]

I have a friend with
major vision problems and he just replaced his 21" Hitachi CRT with a 21"
Samsung LCD, which he says is noticeably easier for him to read.

Hmm... I would think that someone with "vision problems" would prefer
running at lower resolutions, which is something that CRT's are better
at. A 21" CRT running at, say, 1024x768 would be well-above-average
in the "easy on the eyes" department...

 

[Doc]

J. Clarke typed this:

Is there any particular reason you don't want an LCD? I have a friend with
major vision problems and he just replaced his 21" Hitachi CRT with a 21"
Samsung LCD, which he says is noticeably easier for him to read. Remember
also that with an LCD you gain about an inch of display area over a CRT of
the same nominal size--CRT size is the size from corner to corner of the
outer edge of the tube, not the actual image size--and before anyone flies
off the handle at the CRT manufacturers, this method of measurement is
mandated by some consumer protection law or other--the manufacturers don't
have any say in the matter.

If you don't absolutely have to have an ATI or nvidia video board, you might
consider going to a Matrox--they have a very convenient zoom feature (that
ATI _used_ to have--the hardware still supports it but they've hosed up the
interface beyond redemption) that he finds exceedingly helpful. Nvidia may
have such a feature as well, haven't run one of their boards in so long
that I don't know their capabilities anymore.

LCDs don't have the resolution configuration and the large ones end up
with such small icons, you can of course bring the application pages
larger but the whole desktop looks like a million miles away to my eyes.
Sorry for the delay in answering the help, been a bit under the weather.
Thanks.

 

[Doc]

chrisv typed this:

Hmm... I would think that someone with "vision problems" would prefer
running at lower resolutions, which is something that CRT's are better
at. A 21" CRT running at, say, 1024x768 would be well-above-average
in the "easy on the eyes" department...

Amen to that brother! You are preacing to the Choir.
That is why I want a large CRT and don't or cannot want the LcD.
Still looking. Thanks all!

 

[J. Clarke]

chrisv typed this:


Amen to that brother! You are preacing to the Choir.
That is why I want a large CRT and don't or cannot want the LcD.
Still looking. Thanks all!

He runs at native resolution with the default font sizes and the like, using
the Matrox virtual desktop (which ATI boards also have but which the
support software no longer allows to be easily accessed) to give him a
quickly changeable zoom ratio. He just hits the F11 key to go through
three different zoom levels, all of which are exact multiples of the
default resolution and so map groups of physical pixels exactly to logical
pixels.

We tried all of the various "accessibility" options in Windows and found
that they were less satisfactory than the approach that we have ended up
taking.

 

[Doc]

J. Clarke typed this:

Doc wrote:




He runs at native resolution with the default font sizes and the like, using
the Matrox virtual desktop (which ATI boards also have but which the
support software no longer allows to be easily accessed) to give him a
quickly changeable zoom ratio. He just hits the F11 key to go through
three different zoom levels, all of which are exact multiples of the
default resolution and so map groups of physical pixels exactly to logical
pixels.

We tried all of the various "accessibility" options in Windows and found
that they were less satisfactory than the approach that we have ended up
taking.

I'll have to look into that... my graphics card (Radeon 7000VE - old)
just died... need a new one. Didn't think that Matrox was still in the
business. Used to love their cards for TEXT.. great..