Jim Higson wrote:
I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it comes from Windows/Linux or anything else.After reading about all the nvidia problems, I'm just trying to find a board/display that works. I'm not certain that DVI is the way to go or not.
I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate the DVI spec) you won't have any problems.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
In theory you're right, but in practice, it makes a difference. Some displays are better than others, or else there would only be one manufacturer. www.tomshardware.com provides some input, but they are Windows centric. O/S's these days try to get the make and model of the display from the hardware itself to help configure the video system. My current old 20" monitor is too stupid to supply such data. I'd like to find one that both Windows and Linux can recognize.
This is personal preference more than anything else, and I may end up not liking the wider format. I've not tried it yet. :-) That's why I'm asking for input from folks who have already made the leap.Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via
emacs. More info per eye full.
Really?
Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The 16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels.
At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is 16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
Although I agree with your arithmetic, metaphorically speaking you advocate purchasing a Ferrari because it has more horsepower than the SUV. I want to try an SUV.
I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if I were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its just not comfortable for me. I find I always want the width more than the height. A piece of information is usually listed horizontally, not vertically. I'd like to read the log lines in one eye full as opposed to scrolling right for example.
I'd also like to stop my self imposed practice of writing code \ limiting each line to around 80 columns. That's from my 026 \ keypunch days on a mainframe. With a wider screen, its more\ likely I'll use the width to put an entire thought on one line as \ opposed to doing line continuations because theres a better chance \ that the line will hold the entire thought. i.e long if statements, etc.
Like it or not, HDTV format will take over in my opinion. I've already seen some laptops, Toshiba I believe, and they're georgeous, except they still use those miserable tiny keyboards (lots of empty space left and right of the keys - what's the point of that). Since one of my TVs quit, and my 1995 vintage 20" heats the room I'm in (literally), I figured its time to lower my electric bill, get rid of the radiation, and get a more modern form factor all at the same time. I'm just not sure what to get.
-- Bill Gradwohl bill@xxxxxxx http://www.ycc.com spamSTOMPER Protected email
