Life In 19x19

Apple used to have a 24", but they discontinued it. You might be able to get one as a refurb.

One comment regarding Apple displays. For a couple of years, I was using a Dell display (the more expensive model; around $600 for a 24"). Then I got an Apple 24" on loan, and was totally blown away by the quality of the colors and the font display. It's a fair amount more expensive, but definitely worth it. So when the 27" came out, I bought that, and it's really great. It's the same amount of pixels as their previous 30" (2560 x 1440) and the font display is great, because of the pitch (108 dpi). It's not that big, at least the base isn't, so I find it's great on my desk.

This won't help laptop users any, but several people at my workplace (myself included) use widescreen monitors tilted 90 degrees for maximum code viewage...

daniel_the_smith wrote:This won't help laptop users any, but several people at my workplace (myself included) use widescreen monitors tilted 90 degrees for maximum code viewage...

I tried that once, and it was just too weird. I guess people might get used to it, but it freaked me out.

I have given up on trying to find a good display for my PC. Aren't desktop devices supposed to be better than mobile devices? My laptop has ~130 dpi, my mobile phone has ~260 dpi, but my desktop has just 85 dpi. But it has HD support! *argh*

http://xkcd.com/732/

flOvermind wrote:I have given up on trying to find a good display for my PC. Aren't desktop devices supposed to be better than mobile devices? My laptop has ~130 dpi, my mobile phone has ~260 dpi, but my desktop has just 85 dpi. But it has HD support! *argh*

http://xkcd.com/732/

That is exactly how I feel!

Yea, HD is a huge scam...

Why are you guys saying HD is a ripoff? Is it because the resolution is too low? If so, isn't it relevant that TVs are huge, therefore costly, and generally sit several feet away from the viewer (making the necessary resolution smaller?

Please be gentle: I probably know less about video and displays than everyone here, so these are probably dumb questions.

Because, at least in the US, there has been such a Big Deal made about HD as if it were really a big deal. Sure, you sit far from a TV, but 1080 lines is not that "high" definition, especially as people buy humungous TVs now. Then you get everything that displays 1080 pixels high being called HD - portable devices, and the like, such as the xkcd comic points out.

Also, there's HD and HD; in fact, anything over 480 px is called HD in the US, so you get 720 px HD being called HD just like 1080 px. Most streaming "HD" movies are only in 720 px; compare that to PAL, which is already in 576 px, and there's really very little difference. While I can see the difference between 1080 and DVDs here in France, 720 doesn't look much different from regular broadcasts or DVDs.

In short, consumers got snookered - especially in the US - with the first wave of "HD" TVs that were in 720. It's a bit difference in Europe, where widescreen TVs in standard resolution were already available.

And, no matter what, 1080 px is not very high resolution...

hyperpape wrote:Why are you guys saying HD is a ripoff? Is it because the resolution is too low? If so, isn't it relevant that TVs are huge, therefore costly, and generally sit several feet away from the viewer (making the necessary resolution smaller?

Please be gentle: I probably know less about video and displays than everyone here, so these are probably dumb questions.

Also relevant that CRT Monitors, pre LCD era, were capable of some simply mind boggling resolutions. Yes, you sit closer to monitors, so their higher resolutions are necessary, but many of the larger size big screen tvs, with 1080p, still have visible 'granularity'. Over 50 inches and you have to have a room quite large to sit far enough away, and no matter what you do, a 40 inch 1080p will never be as sharp or clear as a much cheaper 24 inch monitor, even running at similar resolutions.

1080p isn't 'bad' by any stretch of the imagination. However, if you have a keen eye for graphics, shading, and gradients, it's likely the least you can accept as an 'improvement' over standard def TV.

1080p is pretty good for an average TV screen. But for bigger screens or closer sitting users, it's a joke.

Don't get me wrong: For TV, HD is a big improvement over PAL/NTSC. The problem is that lately practically *every* display has to be HD. And in the case of computer monitors, that's actually worse than what we had before.

Add to that the stupid notion (coming from the windows world) that a higher resolution neccessarily means a smaller and therefore harder to read font size, and suddenly people *want* lower resolution monitors! That's not a problem, it's a great feature!

flOvermind wrote:1080p is pretty good for an average TV screen. But for bigger screens or closer sitting users, it's a joke.

Don't get me wrong: For TV, HD is a big improvement over PAL/NTSC. The problem is that lately practically *every* display has to be HD. And in the case of computer monitors, that's actually worse than what we had before.

Add to that the stupid notion (coming from the windows world) that a higher resolution neccessarily means a smaller and therefore harder to read font size, and suddenly people *want* lower resolution monitors! That's not a problem, it's a great feature!

What do you mean "every display has to be HD?" Do you mean widescreen? Because pretty much all computer displays are 1080 px or better. But many people confuse HD with widescreen, 16:9 format, because, as I said earlier, in the US, widescreen TVs were relatively rare before HD. (Here in Europe, they started getting popular around 1998 for the World Cup; I got my first widescreen 32" CRT TV in 2001.)

Higher resolution means you increase the size of your fonts. That's pretty easy to do on Windows, even for all interface elements, and less easy on Mac, where you can't change the size of fonts in menus, dialogs, etc., but can change them everywhere else. I use relatively large fonts on my computers and always have, so with a bigger screen, I get very readable fonts (because of the pitch, mentioned above, of 108 dpi on my current display).

kirkmc wrote:What do you mean "every display has to be HD?" Do you mean widescreen? Because pretty much all computer displays are 1080 px or better. But many people confuse HD with widescreen, 16:9 format, because, as I said earlier, in the US, widescreen TVs were relatively rare before HD. (Here in Europe, they started getting popular around 1998 for the World Cup; I got my first widescreen 32" CRT TV in 2001.)

I mean that every display has to have a sticker on it that says it "has full HD support", otherwise it won't sell. Since "full HD" (= marketing name for 1080p) isn't that great, it removes the motivation of display manufacturers to make better monitors. Yes, many computer displays are better than 1080p. But only slightly. My brand new 26" monitor has the same vertical pixel count (1920x1200) than my 20 years old 19" CRT (1600x1200). That's only 87 DPI, compared to the 105 DPI I already had 20 years ago. But the monitor manufacturers don't care as long as they can put an HD sticker on it. Because when it has an HD sticker, it has to be better, right?

kirkmc wrote:Higher resolution means you increase the size of your fonts. That's pretty easy to do on Windows, even for all interface elements, and less easy on Mac, where you can't change the size of fonts in menus, dialogs, etc., but can change them everywhere else. I use relatively large fonts on my computers and always have, so with a bigger screen, I get very readable fonts (because of the pitch, mentioned above, of 108 dpi on my current display).

Yes, it's easy to increase font size on windows. But that will mess up the layout of many applications. You get cut off controls, unreadable buttons and so on. I don't know if it's better with Windows 7, but with XP it was practically unusable. Besides, it's something you have to configure manually, and most people just don't know you can do that.

I don't know about Mac, but on Linux font sizes automatically adjust according to the DPI of the monitor. That works pretty well with most applications, at least when the monitor supplies the correct size information. If not, you can always override that and supply the real value manually.

I'm not saying font sizes are a problem because of high resolutions. But I know lots of people who prefer lower resolutions because of font size. These are of course mostly people who just don't know any better. They are also the same people who envy me for the clear fonts on my devices. And on the next day they call me stupid for using such a big resolution, because you can't read anything with these small fonts. For these people, font size and display resolution is the same. Of course they are wrong. But that doesn't matter because they are in the majority. And when the majority of users prefers to buy a low resolution monitor, the industry would be stupid to try and make a high resolution monitor that won't really sell.

Well, I guess I'm a bit different than you. I don't look at the type of monitor that would say "full HD support." My monitor is a tool, and is very important, and I have paid well above the average prices over the years to get the best I could. I would never buy a 26" monitor with resolution like the one you have. My guess is that it was pretty cheap, though; you get what you pay for.

And I don't think the majority of people want low resolution monitors; they just want cheap monitors. Which, for most, makes sense. Unless they use a computer a lot, they probably don't need anything better.

(It's interesting - I just looked at the best selling monitors on Amazon, and you are, indeed, correct. There's even a 27" monitor at 1920x1080. I don't see why anyone would buy that...)

I had this blog post in the back of my mind when I asked the question: http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter or rather, I had a memory of someone mentioning it--I only looked it up after asking my questions.

We have a 32" inch 1080p tv on a dresser near the foot of the bed (6' away). Hmm...

kirkmc wrote:Well, I guess I'm a bit different than you. I don't look at the type of monitor that would say "full HD support." My monitor is a tool, and is very important, and I have paid well above the average prices over the years to get the best I could. I would never buy a 26" monitor with resolution like the one you have. My guess is that it was pretty cheap, though; you get what you pay for.

Yes, it was pretty cheap. But I honestly have no idea where I could get a better model. Of course there were more expensive models at the shop, but they were just faster or bigger, but with the same resolution.

Perhaps some specialized online shop would have better models? I don't know, I just went to a general computer store...