HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?
"Frank McCoy" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
wrote:
Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?
Because the pixels on the LCD screen are *much* better defined; and
don't bleed into each other like those on a CRT do. This makes
(viewing-wise) much clearer Icons and even text; almost like going up
the next step in resolution to 2400x1800, without having to change
sizes
of everything to match. Each pixel is more *distinct* from the next
one. Also, the screen is *always* filled out to the edges, perfectly
square, with no tilt, keystone, pincushion, or other defect like
purity
and misalignment that you get in CRT screens at similar definitions.
So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.
That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.
IOW, that's your opinion. You stated it previously as if it were fact.
Thanks for clearing that up.
|