Re: Monitor Brands?
- From: The Real Bev <bashley@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 21:57:23 -0800
Rich Greenberg wrote:
In article <SC6af.113$W4.28760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, CWLee <cdubyalee@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Two responses have suggested I need first to decide between CRT or LCD. OK, fair enough.
I don't really know the difference, but the monitors I've been using are 5 and 8 years old. They are fine for text - 90% of my usage, and for viewing personal photos and websites - the other 10% of my usage. Colors are a bit off on one of them, and that is why I'm considering a new one, since I just started using a digital camera which requires a computer to see the photos larger than what is shown on the camera.
I'm guessing that LCD is a later technology than CRT, and probably "better but more expensive"? What other basis for chosing between the two, besides whether I use it for text mostly, or pictures mostly?
The biggest advantage of the LCD is that it is much lighter and has a much smaller footprint on your desk.
An LCD has a "native resolution", such as 1280x1024 and provides the best images when the display is set to that resolution. Icons and labels can get VERY tiny at high resolutions. Windows Vista will suposedly fix this.
You can fix most of that stuff going back to win95, but it's a nuisance. I've got a 19" 1600x1200 monitor and I like to cram as much READABLE text on the screen as I can. I was always annoyed that there were certain Windows message windows whose text stubbornly refused to enlarge. Stupid...
-- Cheers, Bev =============================================================== Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out, and shouting HOLY SHIT!!! WHAT A RIDE!!! .
- Prev by Date: Re: Monitor Brands?
- Next by Date: Re: Monitor Brands?
- Previous by thread: Re: Monitor Brands?
- Next by thread: Re: Monitor Brands?