 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
Hehe, 1152x864 100.2Hz...
Yes, for some reason my monitor is rock steady around this resolution,
but worbles a bit at 1600x1200 and worbles really bad in MS-Dos mode
(whatever resolution that is), although games running at 640x480 or
800x600 are steady so I don't know what the deal is...
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricy net>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
I've been using 1600x1200 @ 75Hz for a few weeks, getting eyestrain I think
because of the small fonts I'm stuck with. Any larger a font size than 125% and
it messes up certain programs by dropping off the text. Might not be as good on
the eyes (have fluorescent bulb here too) as the 1280x1024 @ 85Hz.
Since on the subject here I switched down to this and my eyes are already
thanking me. I just wanted to max out for a while anyway.
I would think your DOS display is always 640x400 unless you change it, don't
know for sure.
Bob
"David Fontaine" <dav### [at] faricynet> wrote in message
news:3878F17F.6778F989@faricy.net...
> > 1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
>
> Hehe, 1152x864 100.2Hz...
> Yes, for some reason my monitor is rock steady around this resolution,
> but worbles a bit at 1600x1200 and worbles really bad in MS-Dos mode
> (whatever resolution that is), although games running at 640x480 or
> 800x600 are steady so I don't know what the deal is...
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
>
> > 1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
>
> Hehe, 1152x864 100.2Hz...
> Yes, for some reason my monitor is rock steady around this resolution,
> but worbles a bit at 1600x1200 and worbles really bad in MS-Dos mode
Yes, on a 19"! I find 1280x1024 pretty much useless on mine. Not just
because it's running at an unacceptable 60Hz, but because the pixels
ain't well defined.
Talking about sizes: it's a 15" tube, 14" visible. Sort of misleading
marketing there..
sig.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3879177A.4266037C@stud.ntnu.no>, Sigmund Kyrre Aas
<as### [at] studntnuno> wrote:
> Talking about sizes: it's a 15" tube, 14" visible. Sort of misleading
> marketing there..
I think that for a while Apple was measuring their monitors by the
visible size, but stopped that because people were comparing their
monitors to monitors by other manufacturers by the rated size. Because
Apple used visible size while others used tube size, it made Apple
monitors look even more expensive than they actually were.(because
people would compare an Apple with 14 inch visible to another brand's 14
inch tube with 13 inch visible)
Of course, this might be a myth, but it is interesting. Can anyone
confirm/disprove this?
--
Chris Huff
e-mail: chr### [at] yahoocom
Web page: http://chrishuff.dhs.org/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Yes, on a 19"! I find 1280x1024 pretty much useless on mine. Not just
> because it's running at an unacceptable 60Hz, but because the pixels
> ain't well defined.
And it's not 3:4, perhaps most important for certain applications (like
POV...)
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>And it's not 3:4, perhaps most important for certain applications (like
>POV...)
Oops! You know I thought it was. I've been running at it since I got my 17"
monitor. It seems OK so far. Have my images been weird lately?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Oops! You know I thought it was. I've been running at it since I got my 17"
> monitor. It seems OK so far. Have my images been weird lately?
No. They would only be wierd on your monitor so long as you didn't change the
output ratio in POV...
I noticed it especially when I was looking at some VRML stuff, 'round' objects
appeared squashed or elliptical. So I changed it to 1152x864.
--
Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
___ ______________________________
| \ |_ <dav### [at] faricynet>
|_/avid |ontaine <ICQ 55354965>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Maybe I'm just lucky or something, but round looks round here. :)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David Fontaine wrote:
> > 1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
>
> Hehe, 1152x864 100.2Hz...
> Yes, for some reason my monitor is rock steady around this resolution,
> but worbles a bit at 1600x1200 and worbles really bad in MS-Dos mode
> (whatever resolution that is),
DOS = 640x480 at 80x24 but usually 80x25
> although games running at 640x480 or
> 800x600 are steady so I don't know what the deal is...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sun, 09 Jan 2000 21:00:43 +0100, Sigmund Kyrre Aas
<as### [at] studntnuno> wrote:
>Aw! 43Hz is like watching a strobe! I've got a 105076 (don't know the
>difference from yours) and would say that the ideal resolution is
>1152x864, 76Hz. It's pin sharp in the corners and rock steady.
>
>sig.
It's not that bad because it's interlaced so for static images it is
like 86Hz non-interlaced. Interlacing is only seen on fast-moving
objects.
1152x864 is too small for my brother and father. I don't need such a
great res anyway because most of the graphics I do are for the web and
I prefer to work under normal conditions (800x600 for 14", 1024x768
for 15").
105076 complies to more strict emission standards, has a better
anti-glare film and maybe a smaller dot pitch. I'll have to ask the
guys at the store.
Peter Popov
pet### [at] usanet
ICQ: 15002700
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
