Forums > Specific Focus > Technical Mexico

johanson / Moderator

Apr 10, 2007, 9:39 AM

Post #1 of 5 (2882 views)

Shortcut

Resolution

Can't Post | Private Reply

I am missing something here, people pay extra money so that they can have higher resolution screens. I do not even have the ability on my oldest a 3 year old 17 in LCD monitor to make my settings worse than 800/600. My 2005 Dell Laptop settings vary from 800 by 600 to 1600 by 1200.

Doesn't everyone choose the highest resolution possible and then using the same "Display Properties" tab that allows you to change the screen resolution, change the size of the icons, print etc, thereby giving you larger print size if you wish?

Isn't it better to watch a sharp or high resolution screen than a low resolution fuzzy screen? Obviously I am missing something here.

(This post was edited by jennifer rose on Apr 10, 2007, 12:48 PM)

drfugawe

Apr 10, 2007, 12:33 PM

Post #2 of 5 (2856 views)

Shortcut

Re: [johanson] Chase vs. HSBC

Can't Post | Private Reply

Well, ... I just don't know - I was the guy who asked the "dummy" question, right?

All I know is that at lower resolution (800x600), which BTW is sharper, not fuzzier, on my unit, some website pages don't fit on my screen. If I raise the resolution to 1024x768, those websites now fit my screen, but the visual results are less than pleasing.

I think the abilities of one's graphics card may have a lot to do with this - but again, I too am missing a lot here!
jm
_________________________

"Self-respect: the secure feeling
that no one, as yet, is suspicious."
H.L. Mencken
____________###

Ron Pickering W3FJW

Apr 10, 2007, 3:19 PM

Post #3 of 5 (2835 views)

Shortcut

Re: [drfugawe] Chase vs. HSBC

Can't Post | Private Reply

Each LCD produced has a native resolution that displays the best. Apparently, drfugawes native resolution is 800 x 600. Most websites are currently authored and published are at 800x600. The trend now is toward 1024x768 because the larger LCD screens are more affordable than they have been in the past. As near as I can remember, most websites and images are still displayed at 60 to 72 pixels to the inch so the larger the screens get, the fuzzier the displays may be (because they stretch the pixels to fill the larger screen) unless the mfgr has written the software drivers to take this into consideration.

Wheeew. I'm getting a headache. This ole brain is having to think too hard to remember all this, but I hope it helped.
Getting older and still not down here.

johanson / Moderator

Apr 10, 2007, 3:34 PM

Post #4 of 5 (2829 views)

Shortcut

Re: [Ron Pickering W3FJW] Chase vs. HSBC

Can't Post | Private Reply

To make it worse, you also have to worry about whether you have an up-to-date video driver. All I know is that when I convert to 800 by 600 on my 17 inch laptop, the print is so big that it is uncomfortable to read (whatever that means), even when I choose the "View" "text size" as "Smallest"

esperanza

Apr 10, 2007, 3:46 PM

Post #5 of 5 (2828 views)

Shortcut

Re: [johanson] Chase vs. HSBC

Can't Post | Private Reply

Pete, you need those new-fangled reading glasses that make big things look farther away, hence smaller.

Jajajajajajajajaja.

http://www.mexicocooks.typepad.com