Are "average" computer users comfortable with LCD native resolutions?

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Why don't you guys just set the DPI setting for the fonts higher, and icon size for the icons? I run a 17" LCD at 12x10, and have the DPI set to 120. Text is sharp and easily readable, without being too big. Seems like a better solution than lowering resolution.

It screws up the proportions of some badly-coded programs. For Microsoft's own programs it seems to be OK, but for anything else it will often screw up the dialogs something awful. Windows Vista should alleviate this.

 

[xtknight]

Originally posted by: Matthias99

Originally posted by: secretanchitman
and why arent laptop resolutions found on desktop monitors? sorry for the side question.

I know they're somewhat limited in manufacturing capability for these relative to 'desktop' LCDs, so maybe they literally just can't make enough of them to sell them as a separate desktop product. Most of the new LCD plant capacity has been going towards bigger screens (for TVs), since they are easier to manufacture (MUCH lower pixel density) and have much bigger profit margins.

I also, personally, wouldn't want a 15" 1900x1200 widescreen. That's too small for desktop use; I'd have to sit with my nose against the damn thing to read anything. Anything smaller than 18-19" is, to me, not usable on the desktop.

Now, if they wanted to make a reasonably-priced 19" 1600x1200 LCD with good response times, OTOH... I think there could be a market for that. And/or for a 20/21" at 2048x1536.

Yeah, true for the 15.4" ones. I don't want 1920x1200 either at 15.4". However for a 20" monitor I'd love to have native 1920x1080 widescreen, not the 1920x1200 16:10 stuff. And 1600x1200 at 19" would be just perfect IMO. They do that for CRTs, why not LCDs? Obviously they had a good profit margin on the desktop CRTs right?

 

[kmmatney]

I had a 17" LCD at work, but the pixels were too small for me, so I had them buy me a 21" LCD. I have a 19" LCD at home and the pixel size is perfect. I would persoanlly never recommend a 17" LCD because of the small pixel size. 19" LCDs are perfect for the Joe average user.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Why don't you guys just set the DPI setting for the fonts higher, and icon size for the icons? I run a 17" LCD at 12x10, and have the DPI set to 120. Text is sharp and easily readable, without being too big. Seems like a better solution than lowering resolution.

It screws up the proportions of some badly-coded programs. For Microsoft's own programs it seems to be OK, but for anything else it will often screw up the dialogs something awful. Windows Vista should alleviate this.

its not that severe. i use large font preset there and rarely do i see a problem with an app. its rare enough that its not worth worrying about for most people.

 

[justlnluck]

Just curious. How small does text look on a 2405 at native res?

 

[RobsTV]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: xtknight

Originally posted by: sodcha0s
Why don't you guys just set the DPI setting for the fonts higher, and icon size for the icons? I run a 17" LCD at 12x10, and have the DPI set to 120. Text is sharp and easily readable, without being too big. Seems like a better solution than lowering resolution.

It screws up the proportions of some badly-coded programs. For Microsoft's own programs it seems to be OK, but for anything else it will often screw up the dialogs something awful. Windows Vista should alleviate this.

its not that severe. i use large font preset there and rarely do i see a problem with an app. its rare enough that its not worth worrying about for most people.

I see it often.
Also, along the same lines, here have a font problem with HTPC's running TV out to a TV CRT.
TV's set at 800x600 usually, and text is unreadable unless you play with fonts.
Tried the DPI trick, but it makes things worse than adjusting each font area.
Too many apps get screwed up.
IE is the worse offender.

The other area that this problem is worse in is laptops.
WUXGA 1920x1200 native res on a 17" widescreen laptop is tough for many, but on a 15" is just plain nuts.
DPI is of course quick and easy for many to try, but again, too many apps are wacked for me to use..

Plus, 120 DPI still is no where near as clean looking as native 96 DPI.
This site is an example of nasty when using 120 DPI.

Edit: Just switched to 120 DPI to confirm, came back here, and it was fine. But, I did not reboot. After reboot, came back here, and yep, NASTY. All the Anandtech tabs, like motherboards, memory, storage, etc, look worse than if you simply run at lower res. Try it with your LCD. Back to 96 DPI I go.

 

[andras]

This link (http://www.qg.fi/screeninformation.html) is very useful to compare text size on different screens.

 

[i4edge]

I recommend a 19" over the 17" and let them run at the highest 1280x1024 if possible. I always change the window settings to make the fonts and icons bigger. Most of the time they prefer that. The screens are real crisp when running at the native resolution.

If they don't like the 19" it's better (imho) to go for a lower native resolution 17" and save a few $ since it is generally crisper to run it at the native resolution.

In fact using DVI output makes a big difference in how clear the screen is.