void wrote:
> I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card
> and a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
> 1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get
> a larger LCD monitor.
>
> First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
> G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60
> Hz. If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large
> enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
> what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
> want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I
> upgrade my computer.)
To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
think widescreen is a waste of money.
> Would the image stretch horizontally so that it
> fit all of the screen? (That would be bad.)
Probably.
> Or would there be empty
> black space on both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
You might be able to configure the monitor/display adapter to do that,
but I think that would look like crap as well.
Display adapters just aren't that expensive. You can probably get a
more contemporary card for less than $40. Post what motherboard you
have, and I'm sure someone can make a budget-minded recommendation.
One thing that you might not be aware of is that LCD monitors have
what's called a native resolution. If you set it to display at
resolutions lower than that, the output will have to be approximated to
that output. That doesn't look so bad, but right at native resolution
looks better.
17" LCD monitors are slightly larger than CRT monitors, and typically
have native resolutions of 1280x1024. Given what you've said above,
that monitor running at native resolution might be a bit small for you.
If you step up to a 19" LCD monitor, you will get the same native
resolution, but larger pixels. Basic 19" monitors are only about $20
more than their 17" counterparts.
>void wrote:
>>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
>>a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
>>1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
>>larger LCD monitor.
>>
>>First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
>>G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
>> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>
>60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
>is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone want
to use that?
>>Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>>what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>>want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>>my computer.)
>
>To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I think
>widescreen is a waste of money.
I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward compatibility
reasons (I have some games that only run in non-widescreen resolutions).
>>Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of the screen?
>>(That would be bad.)
>
>Probably.
>
>>Or would there be empty black space on both sides of the image? (That
>>would be better.)
>
>You might be able to configure the monitor/display adapter to do that, but
>I think that would look like crap as well.
>
>Display adapters just aren't that expensive. You can probably get a more
>contemporary card for less than $40. Post what motherboard you have, and
>I'm sure someone can make a budget-minded recommendation.
I have an ABIT KT7-RAID, although since I'm getting a non-widescreen
monitor, I'll just stick with the G400.
>One thing that you might not be aware of is that LCD monitors have what's
>called a native resolution. If you set it to display at resolutions lower
>than that, the output will have to be approximated to that output. That
>doesn't look so bad, but right at native resolution looks better.
Thanks for that tidbit, I didn't know that.
What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading about
that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said if the
monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange it for
another one.
>17" LCD monitors are slightly larger than CRT monitors, and typically have
>native resolutions of 1280x1024. Given what you've said above, that
>monitor running at native resolution might be a bit small for you. If
>you step up to a 19" LCD monitor, you will get the same native resolution,
>but larger pixels. Basic 19" monitors are only about $20 more than their
>17" counterparts.
When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
viewable size, do they?) And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
void wrote:
>>> I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video
>>> card and a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but
>>> if I try 1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I
>>> want to get a larger LCD monitor.
>>>
>>> First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice
>>> my G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would
>>> be 60 Hz. If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get
>>> a large enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
Grinder wrote:
>> 60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird
>> resolution, is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
void wrote:
> You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
> resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
> compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone
> want to use that?
Yes, it's 5:4 instead of 4:3, but the difference is not really
noticeable. It's what I use.
> What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading
> about that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said
> if the monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange
> it for another one.
It still is a crap shoot. I've been very lucky in that I've not gotten
any dead pixels on any of the LCDs I've purchased--including the
lower-end ones.
>> 17" LCD monitors are slightly larger than CRT monitors, and typically
>> have native resolutions of 1280x1024. Given what you've said above,
>> that monitor running at native resolution might be a bit small for
>> you. If you step up to a 19" LCD monitor, you will get the same
>> native resolution, but larger pixels. Basic 19" monitors are only
>> about $20 more than their 17" counterparts.
>
> When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
> 1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
> size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
> viewable size, do they?)
No, they don't--that's why a 17" LCD monitor will have a bit larger
viewable area than a 17" CRT monitor.
> And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
> would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
> get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
> resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
> optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
> would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
I run 1280x1024 because it matches my monitor's native resolution.
On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void"
<void@no.spam.com> wrote:
>Grinder wrote:
>
>>void wrote:
>>>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
>>>a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
>>>1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
>>>larger LCD monitor.
>>>
>>>First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
>>>G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
>>> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>>
>>60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
>>is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
>
>You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
>resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
>compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone want
>to use that?
No, the pixels on a 5:4 resolutions screen are arranged in a
5:4 ratio, it is not compressed. IE - if the native
resolution of a 19" display is 1280 x 1024, then ONLY 5:4
ratio resolutions will be displayed with the correct ratio.
Similarly, on a CRT with 4:3 ratio, only 4:3 ratio
resolutions will be displayed with correct ratio.
The difference is that LCDs come in multiple ratios you can
choose from, while most CRTs were only 4:3.
>
>
>>>Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>>>what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>>>want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>>>my computer.)
>>
>>To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I think
>>widescreen is a waste of money.
>
>I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward compatibility
>reasons (I have some games that only run in non-widescreen resolutions).
That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
widescreen resolutions.
>What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading about
>that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said if the
>monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange it for
>another one.
Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.
>When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
>1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
>size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
>viewable size, do they?)
No, at least not by much. For example if you bought a 22"
it might actually be 21.6", and the same goes for other
resolutions it is very close. You can also calculate out
the real size by the pixel pitch * the horizontal and
vertical resolution.
>And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
>would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
>get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
>resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
>optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
>would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.
You have no need to run 1280x960 do you? In everyday use
you would want to use 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD, but as for
your games I don't know... many older games do support
1280x1024.
If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
though of course since these are not the LCD's native
resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
important on many games than on reading text at native
resolution.
Considering the cost of a quality monitor and that a
replacement video card can be had for under $40, you might
seriously consider replacing the video card instead of
letting it dictate and limit what monitor choices you
have... but it doesn't do anything about the gaming support
problem.
Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:
>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>
> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
> widescreen resolutions.
I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen
I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
widescreen. Is this the same the world over? I thought I'd max the credit
card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.
> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
> important on many games than on reading text at native
> resolution.
Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
monitor barely larger than this one.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:29:56 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:
>
>>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>>
>> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
>> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
>> widescreen resolutions.
>
>I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen
>
>I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
>Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
>non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
>and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
>of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
>widescreen. Is this the same the world over?
It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.
Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
(I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
accurancy.
>I thought I'd max the credit
>card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
>could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.
If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
find in the future. I just don't know anything about your
market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
how much to pay for that hobby.
>
>> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
>> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
>> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
>> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
>> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
>> important on many games than on reading text at native
>> resolution.
>
>Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
>read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
>worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
>monitor barely larger than this one.
>
>I shall look further.
I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine. On the
other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
in a store to decide.
Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.
Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
saying it's good that it's cheap.
I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
it costs less.
Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:29:56 +1300, "~misfit~"
> <misfit61nz@yahoot.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
>>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:
>>
>>>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>>>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>>>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>>>
>>> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
>>> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
>>> widescreen resolutions.
>>
>> I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen
>>
>> I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in
>> New Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find
>> new non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor
>> at the moment and have been considering getting a larger one.
>> However, after a web search of the obvious local suppliers all I can
>> find larger than 19" are widescreen. Is this the same the world over?
>
> It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
> common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
> 1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
> recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
> remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.
That is what I'm seeing here. I managed to find a couple of non-widescreen
monitors marginally larger than my 19" but they're far dearer than the
widescreen options. It's just not worth if for the few extra pixels.
> Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
> (I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
> bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
> resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
> accurancy.
Ahh, OK, I didn't know that. I used nVidia too. A 7800GT in this machine and
2 x ti4200, a ti4400, an FX5600 and a couple GF2 MX400s in various machines.
The only ATI I have is a 9000 Pro which I got cheap second-hand and used
mainly for a media centre as the TV out is good.
>> I thought I'd max the credit
>> card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas,
>> then I could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to
>> someone else.
>
> If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
> good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
> find in the future.
Sadly, the only ones I can find aren't cheap at all, especially in
comparison with the widescreen counterparts. From what I've seen, they've
never come down in price, never hit "mainstream". However, now it seems that
22" and 24" widescreens are going mainstream.
> I just don't know anything about your
> market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
> that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
> just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
> but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
> how much to pay for that hobby.
Most of the games I play are 5 years old or more. (LOL, in fact all of
them). Some will run at 1024x768 but my favourite runs at 800x600 max. I
don't pay much for that hobby. <g>
>>> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
>>> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
>>> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
>>> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
>>> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
>>> important on many games than on reading text at native
>>> resolution.
>>
>> Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I
>> should have read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum
>> to make the upgrade worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably
>> wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a monitor barely larger than this one.
>>
>> I shall look further.
>
> I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
> pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
> it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
> very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine.
It seems we have similar preferences and usage patterns.
> On the
> other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
> pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
> a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
> suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
> in a store to decide.
The only display I'd have closer than 2 feet would be a laptop screen.
> Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
> spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
> the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
> find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
> unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
> need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
> not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
> recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
> 6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
> others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
> people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
> color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.
>
> Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
> have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
> Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
> color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
> good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
> discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
> imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
> than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
> opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
> side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
> obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
> saying it's good that it's cheap.
>
> I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
> it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
> it costs less.
I couldn't agree more.
Thanks for the input Kony. I'll flag it and continue to use this monitor as
long as it's working well, only "upgrade" when I need to.
--
TTFN,
>Grinder wrote:
>
>> To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
>> think widescreen is a waste of money.
>
>Or a gamer. Wider FOV can make a big difference in games. Tunnel vision
>has always been an issue with 4:3 screens with certain kinds of games.
Now we just need affordable video cards that can run the new games at
high rates on these ~2 MegaPixel widescreens.
>Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
>read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
>worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
>monitor barely larger than this one.
>
>I shall look further.
Viewsonic 2021m is a 20" monitor with only 1400x1050, a little easier
on the eyes than 1600x1200...
> Now we just need affordable video cards that can run the new games at
> high rates on these ~2 MegaPixel widescreens.
>
Agree. And that is why I will stick with 22" widescreen for now and not
go to 24" until vid cards can do them justice. Most of my games run fine
at 1680x1050 with 7950GX2 but need 8800 series or better for some of them.
> Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
> than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
> one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
> can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
> total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
> the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
> their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.
On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:48:03 GMT, John Adams
<no@email.invalid> wrote:
>kony wrote:
>
>> Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
>> than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
>> one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
>> can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
>> total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
>> the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
>> their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.
>
>Samsung has zero dead pixel policy.
.... but it seems to be only if returned within 14 days which
is a lot better than some, but IMO 14 days is a short time.
Somewhere on teh interweb chrisv typed:
> ~misfit~ wrote:
>
>> Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I
>> should have read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum
>> to make the upgrade worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably
>> wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a monitor barely larger than this one.
>>
>> I shall look further.
>
> Viewsonic 2021m is a 20" monitor with only 1400x1050, a little easier
> on the eyes than 1600x1200...
Hmm, thanks, just Googled it. It looks quite good. However, it doesn't offer
a lot of advantage over my current 19" 1280x1024 (or whatever it is <g>)
display.
Re: Monitor questions 
Linear Mode
