Printable View
I have always wondered this... are 15" screens with native 1024x768 resolutions nothing more than 14 inches using stretched pixels? every 15" i have seen that is not u or sxga is more jaggy than 14 inches. if this is really the case, why would anyone wnat a 15" screen?
Ive never heard of this before, I would think that if the resolution is the same in a 14 and 15" screen then yeah it probably is stretched.
For the same reason that someone would want a desktop LCD that was 19" and had a native res of 1280x1024 instead of a 17" 1280x1024 screen. It's easier on the eyes to look at a bigger screen, although of course it's less accurate and exact. It's simply a higher dot pitch on the screen.
i dont think we should compare crt's with lcd's in this, they are just too different.
the varying factor with crt's is resolution vs how hard it is on the eyes.
with lcd's, im talking about resolution/screen size vs how nice the image comes out. neither size is hard on the eyes.
See, I find that it is. You can't tell me that 1600x1200 looks the same on a 15" laptop LCD and my 20" desktop LCD (I know I know more extreme versions). Heck, I use Large fonts on my 20" desktop LCD; I can't imagine what I'd need on a laptop. And note that I'm 19, not exactly someone with deteriorating eyesight or anything.Quote:
Originally posted by likely
i dont think we should compare crt's with lcd's in this, they are just too different.
the varying factor with crt's is resolution vs how hard it is on the eyes.
with lcd's, im talking about resolution/screen size vs how nice the image comes out. neither size is hard on the eyes.
sweet, my 1000th post. Crappy post to be number 1000 though.