FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-24-2012, 05:39 PM
Sian Mountbatten
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen. It
has the non-standard size of 1440x900.


Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about HD
TV? And movies?


Any comments welcome
--
Sian Mountbatten
ex-Algol 68 specialist


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: jn6oh6$e8p$1@speranza.aioe.org">http://lists.debian.org/jn6oh6$e8p$1@speranza.aioe.org
 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:03 PM
"Hans-J. Ullrich"
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Sian Mountbatten:
> When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen. It
> has the non-standard size of 1440x900.
>
> Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
> 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about HD
> TV? And movies?
>
> Any comments welcome

TFT should be used in its native resolution. Doing so, you get the sharpest
screen.

I recommend to use 1440x900 resolution and adjust icon size, fonts etc to your
needs.

Regards

Hans


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 201204242003.44679.hans.ullrich@loop.de">http://lists.debian.org/201204242003.44679.hans.ullrich@loop.de
 
Old 04-24-2012, 06:51 PM
daniel jimenez
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

The extra vertical resolution could come in handy, *although because of the aspect ratio (its much more of a square than the one you've got now) some of it wouldn't be useful when watching widescreen movies.

Think about the aspect ratio as one of the most important factors when choosing a screen. I myself use a 16:10 13" screen at 1200x800 in my laptop and a 5:4 17" 1280x1024 as a second monitor on my desk.


Daniel

On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Hans-J. Ullrich <hans.ullrich@loop.de> wrote:

Am Dienstag, 24. April 2012 schrieb Sian Mountbatten:

> When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen. It

> has the non-standard size of 1440x900.

>

> Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have

> 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about HD

> TV? And movies?

>

> Any comments welcome



TFT should be used in its native resolution. Doing so, you get the sharpest

screen.



I recommend to use 1440x900 resolution and adjust icon size, fonts etc to your

needs.



Regards



Hans





--

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org

with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: http://lists.debian.org/201204242003.44679.hans.ullrich@loop.de





--
Daniel Jiménez
 
Old 04-24-2012, 07:08 PM
Hilco Wijbenga
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On 24 April 2012 10:39, Sian Mountbatten <poenikatu@fastmail.co.uk> wrote:
> When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen. It has
> the non-standard size of 1440x900.
>
> Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
> 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about HD TV?
> And movies?

I consider anything below 1600x1200 as utterly unusable.
Unfortunately, most monitors nowadays are built with the idea that
people use them only to watch movies. So the next best thing is
1920x1200; that should get you the best of both worlds. Samsung, e.g.,
has some *very* nice monitors at that resolution.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: CAE1pOi0pHEyhzdc6_pg+oFr+1ywHQmY0LXRUP1vDnqrmTmhFj A@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/CAE1pOi0pHEyhzdc6_pg+oFr+1ywHQmY0LXRUP1vDnqrmTmhFj A@mail.gmail.com
 
Old 04-24-2012, 08:02 PM
Gary Dale
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On 24/04/12 01:39 PM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT screen.
It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.


Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What about
HD TV? And movies?


Any comments welcome


Multiply the two numbers together to get the total pixel count. 1440 x
900 is a standard 16:9 ratio that gives you 1,296,000 pixels.


1600x1200 is a pretty good 4:3 ratio that gives you 1,920,000 pixels.
That's about 50% more pixels.


However, it's getting harder to find 4x3 screens around. In North
America, the common size is 1920x1080, a standard HD size at 16:9. That
gives you 2,073,600 pixels - an insignificant increase over 1600x1200.


You may have some luck finding a 1920x1200 screen (16:10) which gives
you 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost double the count of your 1440x900
screen. However, these ones are rare.


For any TV viewing, the programming is all going to 16:9 so if you want
to watch current programming, go with a widescreen monitor. The 16:9
ones work well but 16:10 can allow you to have onscreen controls, etc.
below the program. Since 16:9 are more common and generally cheaper...


You can watch widescreen programs on a 4:3 monitor, just like you can on
a TV. However, you won't be using the full screen size.


There's little point in getting any monitor that doesn't do at least
1920x1080 these days. If you are on a very tight budget, getting a used
monitor may be the answer.




--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F9706F0.3000302@rogers.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F9706F0.3000302@rogers.com
 
Old 04-25-2012, 12:35 AM
Arnt Karlsen
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:56 -0400, Gary wrote in message
<4F9706F0.3000302@rogers.com>:

> On 24/04/12 01:39 PM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:
> > When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT
> > screen. It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.
> >
> > Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to
> > have 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software?
> > What about HD TV? And movies?
> >
> > Any comments welcome
>
> Multiply the two numbers together to get the total pixel count. 1440
> x 900 is a standard 16:9 ratio that gives you 1,296,000 pixels.
>
> 1600x1200 is a pretty good 4:3 ratio that gives you 1,920,000 pixels.
> That's about 50% more pixels.
>
> However, it's getting harder to find 4x3 screens around. In North
> America, the common size is 1920x1080, a standard HD size at 16:9.
> That gives you 2,073,600 pixels - an insignificant increase over
> 1600x1200.
>
> You may have some luck finding a 1920x1200 screen (16:10) which gives
> you 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost double the count of your 1440x900
> screen. However, these ones are rare.
>
> For any TV viewing, the programming is all going to 16:9 so if you
> want to watch current programming, go with a widescreen monitor. The
> 16:9 ones work well but 16:10 can allow you to have onscreen
> controls, etc. below the program. Since 16:9 are more common and
> generally cheaper...
>
> You can watch widescreen programs on a 4:3 monitor, just like you can
> on a TV. However, you won't be using the full screen size.
>
> There's little point in getting any monitor that doesn't do at least
> 1920x1080 these days. If you are on a very tight budget, getting a
> used monitor may be the answer.

..if you can afford the desk space, get a _big_ CTR, I usually
run mine at 2048x1536x32@58 to 60Hz, power grid here is 50Hz.

--
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt Karlsen
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
Scenarios always come in sets of three:
best case, worst case, and just in case.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120425023505.5ae402d2@celsius.lan">http://lists.debian.org/20120425023505.5ae402d2@celsius.lan
 
Old 04-25-2012, 01:24 AM
Richard Hector
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On 25/04/12 08:02, Gary Dale wrote:
> 1440 x 900 is a standard 16:9 ratio

Sorry, that just jumps out at me, and I can't ignore it :-)

1600 x 900 is 16:9; 1440 x 900 is clearly 14.4:9, or 16:10.

Richard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F975254.7030904@walnut.gen.nz">http://lists.debian.org/4F975254.7030904@walnut.gen.nz
 
Old 04-25-2012, 08:00 AM
Joe
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:43 -0700
Hilco Wijbenga <hilco.wijbenga@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 24 April 2012 10:39, Sian Mountbatten <poenikatu@fastmail.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT
> > screen. It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.

That's pretty much standard in the '19 inch' size for TVs and monitors.

> >
> > Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to have
> > 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software? What
> > about HD TV? And movies?
>
> I consider anything below 1600x1200 as utterly unusable.
> Unfortunately, most monitors nowadays are built with the idea that
> people use them only to watch movies. So the next best thing is
> 1920x1200; that should get you the best of both worlds. Samsung, e.g.,
> has some *very* nice monitors at that resolution.
>
>

1920x1080 is 1080p in the broadcast TV world, or 'full' HD, therefore
high volume production and a reasonable price. I've just moved to a TV
at this resolution from 1440x900, and life is definitely better. The
computer feels newer and more powerful, even though of course in
reality it is struggling harder to shift more pixels around.

--
Joe


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 20120425090016.2adedd7d@jretrading.com">http://lists.debian.org/20120425090016.2adedd7d@jretrading.com
 
Old 04-25-2012, 01:13 PM
Gary Dale
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On 24/04/12 08:35 PM, Arnt Karlsen wrote:

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:56 -0400, Gary wrote in message
<4F9706F0.3000302@rogers.com>:


On 24/04/12 01:39 PM, Sian Mountbatten wrote:

When I replaced my desktop with a new computer, I kept my TFT
screen. It has the non-standard size of 1440x900.

Recently, I have been wondering if it would be better for me to
have 1600x1200 screen. Would this be better for Linux software?
What about HD TV? And movies?

Any comments welcome

Multiply the two numbers together to get the total pixel count. 1440
x 900 is a standard 16:9 ratio that gives you 1,296,000 pixels.

1600x1200 is a pretty good 4:3 ratio that gives you 1,920,000 pixels.
That's about 50% more pixels.

However, it's getting harder to find 4x3 screens around. In North
America, the common size is 1920x1080, a standard HD size at 16:9.
That gives you 2,073,600 pixels - an insignificant increase over
1600x1200.

You may have some luck finding a 1920x1200 screen (16:10) which gives
you 2,304,000 pixels. That's almost double the count of your 1440x900
screen. However, these ones are rare.

For any TV viewing, the programming is all going to 16:9 so if you
want to watch current programming, go with a widescreen monitor. The
16:9 ones work well but 16:10 can allow you to have onscreen
controls, etc. below the program. Since 16:9 are more common and
generally cheaper...

You can watch widescreen programs on a 4:3 monitor, just like you can
on a TV. However, you won't be using the full screen size.

There's little point in getting any monitor that doesn't do at least
1920x1080 these days. If you are on a very tight budget, getting a
used monitor may be the answer.

..if you can afford the desk space, get a _big_ CTR, I usually
run mine at 2048x1536x32@58 to 60Hz, power grid here is 50Hz.

I like CRTs but, as you mentioned, they do take up desk space. They also
use more energy than a modern LCD (especially the LED variety). And they
weigh a lot. Moreover they are, like 4:3 screens, becoming hard to find.


I replaced my old 21" CRT (I had been running it at 1792x1344x32@75hz)
in favour of a 24" LED monitor running at 1920x1080. That's a drop of
.4M pixels but the really high resolution LCD screens cost a lot more.


For some reason the 1920x1200 LCD monitors aren't readily available in
my area or I would have bought one.



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: 4F97F87F.9060808@rogers.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F97F87F.9060808@rogers.com
 
Old 04-25-2012, 02:01 PM
Sian Mountbatten
 
Default Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

On 25/04/12 02:40, Richard Hector wrote:

On 25/04/12 08:02, Gary Dale wrote:

1440 x 900 is a standard 16:9 ratio


Sorry, that just jumps out at me, and I can't ignore it :-)

1600 x 900 is 16:9; 1440 x 900 is clearly 14.4:9, or 16:10.

Richard


Well said. 1920x1080 is 16:9 (aspect ratio of 1.77777777777778)

--
Sian Mountbatten
ex-Algol 68 specialist


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Archive: jn9049$n97$1@speranza.aioe.org">http://lists.debian.org/jn9049$n97$1@speranza.aioe.org
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:09 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org