It is currently Tue May 06, 2025 3:28 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #41 Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 4:27 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
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).

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #42 Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:32 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
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.

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #43 Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 6:41 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
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...)

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #44 Posted: Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:19 pm 
Tengen

Posts: 4382
Location: Caldas da Rainha, Portugal
Liked others: 499
Was liked: 733
Rank: AGA 3k
GD Posts: 65
OGS: Hyperpape 4k
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...

_________________
Occupy Babel!

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #45 Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:31 am 
Lives with ko
User avatar

Posts: 295
Location: Linz, Austria
Liked others: 21
Was liked: 44
Rank: EGF 4 kyu
GD Posts: 627
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...

Top
 Profile  
 
Offline
 Post subject: Re: RIP Non-Widescreens
Post #46 Posted: Wed Jan 05, 2011 4:53 am 
Lives in sente
User avatar

Posts: 1072
Location: Stratford-upon-Avon, England
Liked others: 33
Was liked: 72
Rank: 5K KGS
GD Posts: 1165
KGS: Dogen
flOvermind wrote:
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...


I would guess that "general computer stores" only have cheap models. You'd want to check Amazon for better monitors, or other online dealers. It's odd that they all had the same resolution, though. I guess most people really don't care.

_________________
My blog about Macs and more: Kirkville

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 46 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group