home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386
- Path: sparky!uunet!nic.unh.edu!kepler.unh.edu!pss1
- From: pss1@kepler.unh.edu (Paul S Secinaro)
- Subject: Re: larger/higher resolution displays
- Message-ID: <1992Aug19.122333.19628@newshost.unh.edu>
- Sender: news@newshost.unh.edu (USENET News System)
- Organization: University of New Hampshire - Durham, NH
- References: <1992Aug15.211229.11002@ccorp.uucp> <1992Aug17.222036.29571@crd.ge.com> <Bt5rD7.1rw@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us>
- Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 12:23:33 GMT
- Lines: 29
-
- In article <Bt5rD7.1rw@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us> mju@mudos.ann-arbor.mi.us (Marc Unangst) writes:
- >In article <1992Aug17.222036.29571@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes:
- >> Now, even if you spend the money for a very fine dot pitch, you will
- >>find that the human eye limits you, and you have to get very close to
- >>the display to read reasonable text. 1024 on a good 15 inch display is
- >>useful, but if the price were right I would go to 20.
- >
- >The major problem here, I think, is a basic misunderstanding. When
- >you go to 1024x768 on a 14" monitor, you're not usually trying to make
- >the text smaller so you can cram more on the screen. (Like I said,
- >usually.) Instead, you want to keep the text about the same size as
- >you might use at 800x600, but have finer characters with a bigger
- >character box.
- >
-
- It's also good for displaying large images in applications where you
- are more interested in being able to put the whole thing on the screen
- at once than you are in being able to resolve every single pixel.
-
- On the whole, though, I'd take my 21" Idek monitor over a 14-incher
- anyday :-)
-
- Paul
-
- --
- Niven's Law #14: There exist minds that think as well as you do, but
- differently.
- Niven's Corollary: The gene-tampered turkey you're talking to isn't
- necessarily one of them.
-