800x600 resolution on an LCD monitor?

[JacksonVFR]

I've had my eye on some 15" and 17" LCDs (I'll probably get a 17 inch) for quite some time now. One thing that discourages me is that I read "1024x768 resolution recommended" on nearly all sites carrying them.

I still am an 800x600 user, as I like the look of larger text and pictures. I don't know how anybody can comfortably read the small text of higher resolutions. Anyways, that's a whole topic itself.

So, my question is if 800x600 looks just a clear and vivid on an LCD (text, graphics, everying... I do a lot of reading online) as 1024x768 resolution? Why is 1024x768 recommended?

 

[paparazi]

JacksonVFR
You just have to display at the panels native maximum resolution for the image and text to be clear.
Your argument for keeping 800x600 doesn't hold water! you can customise windows appearance to make just about anything bigger/bolder and easier to see, there are no accuses, you just need to know how.
Typical setting for 15" TFT's is 1024x768 and 1280x1024 for a 17inch.
Martin

We like members to GIVE and not just TAKE.
Participate and help others.

 

[cdogg]

As paparazi said, one of the downfalls of LCD screens is that they only support one resolution. Increasing or decreasing it will only adjust the screen area that the image uses. When you decrease the resolution, imagine a black square around your screen that gets larger as your screen gets smaller.

In addition, Windows XP was designed for higher resolutions. Unlike Win 95/98/ME, XP starts at 800x600 and uses larger fonts by default. And don't forget that resolution isn't just about screen area. In fact, the biggest reason to take an increase is for sharper graphics, pictures and text.

And finally, LCD screen sizes are not identical to CRT screen sizes. For example, a 15" LCD has almost the same screen space as a 17" CRT. This is because the diagonal on CRT monitors aren't measured in terms of true viewable screen space. A 15" CRT only has a 14" diagonal. Read more on that and about image quality here:

http://www.dansdata.com/pv720.htm

~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[FredWagner]

Au Contraire - some windows displays will show whatever resolution you shoot at them - but if it isn't their native resolution, it will be fuzzier than the native display, but it will be full screen. You just have to see if you can deal with it. Some laptops behave as described, and as you use lower pixel counts, the picture gets smaller -that's on systems made 4 or more years ago. (I have two at home, an IBM and a Toshiba). As advised earlier, go into the Display options, and select Windows Standard Large or Windows Standard Extra Large for Icon and label fonts. I support a bunch of Dell and Gateway 17" and 18" FPD's, and am horrified at how many folks use them at 800x600 - they have a legacy character-based app they have to use occasionally, and their used to big characters. I prefer to run a native resolution and use other adjustments as needed.

Fred Wagner
frwagne@longbeach.gov

 

[cdogg]

Thanks Fred for the correction. It has been several years since I've fiddled around with screen resolutions on LCD's. Yeah, I've seen some other posts that also indicate that the text becomes blurry but the image continues to take up the full screen on newer ones. Good to know...


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[Sympology]

Just as a subnote, you'll proberbly end up prefering the higher res. I run at 1400x1050 in a 15" laptop screen. The reason? I have to work on info from several windows at a time, therefore I don't have to alt & tab and try to rememeber the something a just saw (ideal for a goldfish memory like mine..ooo nice castle). The only thing I changed was my font to large, thats it.

Only the truly stupid believe they know everything.
Stu.. 2004

 

[Nelviticus]

LCD screens, including those on laptops, are actually made up of pixels. A screen with a "native resolution" of 1024x786 will be made up of a grid of tiny elements of which there are 1024 horizontally and 768 vertically. If you send it a 1024x768 signal then the display will be crystal clear. If you send it an 800x600 signal it will either a) just display it on an 800x600 pixel grid with a black border around it or more likely b) intelligently "stretch" some of those 800x600 pixels so that they take up 1024x768 pixels of screen space.

I'm not explaining this very well, am I? Imagine a sheet of graph paper with 768 rows and 1024 columns, for a total of 786,432 squares. That's your LCD screen. Each of those squares can be a single colour, any colour you like. If you want to display an 800 x 600 image on it you can either a) just colour in some of the squares so your image only takes up part of the sheet of graph paper or b) make your image fill the whole sheet by colour in some adjacent squares to make up one square or your 800 x 600 image.

The net result is that with method 'a' an 800 x 600 will only use up some of your screen and with method 'b' it will look blurry. An LCD monitor just isn't very good at displaying resolutions other than its native one, due to the way they work.

Finally as cdogg said a 15" LCD monitor has almost as big a display area as a 17" CRT, so you'll probably find that you're perfectly happy with 1024x768 anyway.

Nelviticus

 

[JacksonVFR]

Thank you guys for all of your replies. I have to say that recently, I've warmed up to the idea of using 1024x768. I'm ashamed of being so biased. However, now the same problem exists! I want to get a 17" lcd still, but as you all have informed me, if I go outside of the 1280x1024 native resolution, it'll look blurry and distorted. Now, here I go attacking another resolution: 1280x1024, but that size is just really to small for me. I do a lot of online reading.

This is very unfortunate. I think I will buy myself a 17" flat-screen CRT for now. I'm currently using a borrowed 17" CRT from somebody.

Do any 17" lcds handle different resolutions well at all? Do you guys think it really will be enough to turn me off to the monitor by changing the native resolution on a 17" to 1024x768?

 

[cdogg]

Well, remember that you have more "screen real estate" when you go from a 15" to a 17" flat-screen. So 1280x1024 won't look half as bad as it would on a 15". A larger screen is what makes a higher resolution more worthwhile.

You can test this on a 19" CRT monitor if one's available to you. 1280x1024 is going to be about the same size there as it would on a 17" LCD.


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[ftechguy]

Jackson,
I've tried several Dell LCD's in the office at non-native resolutions and I've found that the 15s and one 17" I've tried run quite decently at one click under their native resolutions (800x600 and 1024x768 respectively). Also if you have Windows XP with Cleartype, it can help smooth out characters. In comparison to some older Philips, Sceptre and Princeton screens I've seen, the difference is huge.

It is definitely not as good as native but usable. So if you can test drive them at the store, you can see for yourself if it is acceptable to you.

 

[billy71]

I am using 800x600 on a KDS 17 inch LCD and I think it looks fine. I use this setting because I develop in VB and transfer to Computers using that setting and I am very well satisifed with it.
Billy

 

[FredWagner]

On LCD's, much more than on CRT's, use of various resolutions produces results that are highly dependent on the display unit itself, combined with the video card and OS features. As Ftechguy says, try before you buy - in the store, or on somebody else's system.

Fred Wagner
frwagne@longbeach.gov

 

[JacksonVFR]

Thanks a lot ftechguy for actually testing that for me! All of you actually have been very helpful. Had this post not recieved many informative replies, I may have already went out and wasted my money.

I'm still undecided, but I'm debating between a 17" CRT and 17" LCD now. I will go into some stores, change around the resolution on some 17 inches and see for myself. Looks like buying online is not really an option, since I will be taking a risk unless I've seen the same monitor in a store beforehand.

 

[felixc]

This is an input from an ex-graphics board designer.
If you can afford the footprint, you will make a better choice with a CRT. If you can afford a 19-inch, go for it you will not regret it (in addition to a much cheaper price than a TFT). CRTs can switch between resolutions without any need for pixel-stretching circuit, so you can go at the resolution that suits you the best.
LCDs will show their full precision and potential only if you work at the native resolution, AND if you have a digital video connection between the video card and the display.
A 1280 x 1024 LCD connected in analog mode to a video card can't fit exactly the pixels at the right place, even if the video card displays at 1280 x 1024, making thin lines and edges blurry.
To see an example of digital video connection, take a look at a laptop with a big LCD screen. You will see the difference.

 

[cdogg]

All good points! Thanks for the participation everyone!!


~cdogg
[tab]"All paid jobs absorb and degrade the mind";
[tab][tab]- Aristotle
[tab][navy]For general rules and guidelines to get better answers, click here:[/navy] faq219-2884

 

[FredWagner]

One last word of caution, learned from horrified experience. We have a number of Gateway E-3600's with NVIDIA video cards running Win2K. If somebody unknowingly downloads the NVIDIA video driver update on one of those systems, they can no longer get any video via the digital connection in Win2K - they get the BIOS, the splash screen, and then BLACK. To recover, we've had to just swap the digital cable for an analog cable! We still get an occasional agonized Help Desk call from a user with Admin rights on his PC who just made a personal visit to WindowsUpdate....

Fred Wagner
frwagne@longbeach.gov

 

[JacksonVFR]

I want to thank everybody for helping me out/informing me.

I have to say that today, I went to a small local computer shop and viewed a 17" lcd in its native resolution of 1280x1024 and I was actually impressed. I had one of the employees open up a .txt file so that I could check out the clairity and size of it all. So, I think I can actually make the adjustment without having to buy a 17" lcd and taking a risk at changing the resolution and finding it too blurry for myself. I think that now, that problem is eliminated.

...and yes, I am very impulsive I guess. I went from favoring 800x600, to adjusting to 1024x768 and now I think I can tolerate 1280x1024.

 

[JacksonVFR]

Another update. Just got a Samsung 17" LCD (SyncMaster 712N) and am running it at 1280x1024. It is absolutely perfect for me!