Decisions, decisions.

[tinyjo]

Someone from my company has just left. This means I could have his flat panel monitor, which would be very nice because my big hulking one is forced too close to my face by my desk at the moment, but the max resolution it'll run is 1280 * 1024, which is quite a bit larger than my current (1600 * 1200). I'm having a go with it at the moment, to see if I could get used to it but... it's odd, certainly. I like my screen full of tiny icons and lots of space. I was really surprised this didn't go higher - it's newer than mine, after all, but no, this seems to be the best it can do.

Comments

LCDs tend to be lower res than the same-sized CRT...

[damiancugley.livejournal.com]

... but the picture is sharper. The LCD picture is made of lots of individual pixels, so maybe it is hard making them any higher res. That said, my 12" PowerBook does 1024 pixels with a diagonal of 12", which would suggest that a 17" LCD at 1450x1090 is technically feasible. You could try persuading the company that you need an Apple Cinema Display: the 30" does 2560x1600 and requires a special graphics card...!

Re: LCDs tend to be lower res than the same-sized CRT...

[tinyjo.livejournal.com]

I'm not having much luck trying to come up with a convincing arguement to take to John :)

You're right about the clarity though - it is nice. I think on consideration I'll probably stick with this one.