On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 01:23:06PM -0700,
sinck@ugive.com wrote:
> \_ 19" screens have definitely the best price- performance
> \_ now. 1152x864 is the sweet spot resolution
> Is this the one that actually utilizes the most pixels without
> actually going over the real pixel/phosphor count? Me, I could never
Well that would depend on dot pitch, which I think on most good-quality
monitors is plenty for any resolution the monitor can do.
The "sweet spot" effect is that 1152 x 864 is 995328 pixels... nearly
one megapixel. So with 2 megs VRAM you can allocate 2 bytes per pixel
and get 16-bit color, whereas at 1280 x 1024 you can only get 256
colors. Other than that consideration (which is still a problem with
the !@#$ Sun boxes where I work... I can't believe workstations still
exist with such low-end frame buffers; and X does such a lousy job of
"making do" with 256 colors anyway) I like to run at the max possible
resolution... I would do 1600 x 1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor if possible.
--
_______ Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD ecloud@bigfoot.com
(_ | |_) http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud kb7pwd@kb7pwd.ampr.org
__) | | \________________________________________________________________
Free long distance at http://www.bigredwire.com/me/RefTrack?id=USA063420
(text/plain)