On Tue, Nov 21, 2000 at 01:23:06PM -0700, sinck@ugive.com wrote:
> \_ 19" screens have definitely the best price- performance
> \_ now. 1152x864 is the sweet spot resolution 
> Is this the one that actually utilizes the most pixels without
> actually going over the real pixel/phosphor count?  Me, I could never

Well that would depend on dot pitch, which I think on most good-quality
monitors is plenty for any resolution the monitor can do.

The "sweet spot" effect is that 1152 x 864 is 995328 pixels... nearly
one megapixel.  So with 2 megs VRAM you can allocate 2 bytes per pixel
and get 16-bit color, whereas at 1280 x 1024 you can only get 256
colors.  Other than that consideration (which is still a problem with
the !@#$ Sun boxes where I work... I can't believe workstations still
exist with such low-end frame buffers; and X does such a lousy job of
"making do" with 256 colors anyway) I like to run at the max possible 
resolution... I would do 1600 x 1200 on a 19" or 21" monitor if possible.

-- 
  _______                   Shawn T. Rutledge / KB7PWD  ecloud@bigfoot.com
 (_  | |_)          http://www.bigfoot.com/~ecloud  kb7pwd@kb7pwd.ampr.org
 __) | | \________________________________________________________________
 Free long distance at http://www.bigredwire.com/me/RefTrack?id=USA063420