Is 1600x1200 screen better than 1440x900?

[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

[Hans-J. Ullrich]

Post by 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

[daniel jimenez]

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

Post by Hans-J. Ullrich

Post by 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
--
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact

[Hilco Wijbenga]

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.

[Joe]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:08:43 -0700

Post by Hilco Wijbenga

Post by Sian Mountbatten
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.

Post by Hilco Wijbenga

Post by Sian Mountbatten
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.

[Gary Dale]

Post by 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

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.

[Arnt Karlsen]

On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:56 -0400, Gary wrote in message

Post by Gary Dale

Post by 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

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 ***@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.

[Gary Dale]

Post by Arnt Karlsen
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 16:02:56 -0400, Gary wrote in message

Post by Gary Dale

Post by 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

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

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 ***@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.

[Vincent Lefevre]

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.

Unfortunately the loss in vertical resolution is more important than
the number of pixels for viewing PDF files in portrait orientation,
unless you have a rotatable second monitor just for that.
--
Vincent Lefèvre <***@vinc17.net> - Web: <http://www.vinc17.net/>
100% accessible validated (X)HTML - Blog: <http://www.vinc17.net/blog/>
Work: CR INRIA - computer arithmetic / AriC project (LIP, ENS-Lyon)

[Richard Hector]

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

[Sian Mountbatten]

Post by Richard Hector

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)

[Camaleón]

Post by 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

A higher resolution provides you with additional space to locate windows
or viewing more content in them. I will pay additional €€€ for that, it's
worth of it, IMO, and not for the software (HD and videos will be
accomodated to fit whatever resolution you have) but for you :-)

Greetings,

[Sian Mountbatten]

Post by Camaleón

Post by 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

A higher resolution provides you with additional space to locate windows
or viewing more content in them. I will pay additional €€€ for that, it's
worth of it, IMO, and not for the software (HD and videos will be
accomodated to fit whatever resolution you have) but for you :-)
Greetings,

Well, I was asking my friendly computer consultant something about
networking and spotted a large screen on the shelf. It was an iiyama
ProLite E2208HDD. Just unboxed and definitely new. The asking price was
£125 which I thought reasonable since that obviously included delivery.
Removed my 1440x900 monitor, connected up the 1920x1080 monitor using
the same cables (mains and DVI-D) and now I have an excellent screen:
more space on-screen, sharp letters and the HD TV is truly excellent.
This is the best reproduction I've ever had. Definitely a good buy.