HIGH Screen resolution kills performance in WIN/XP?

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
wrote:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
desktop.
Higher resolution makes most things too small.
Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font sizes.
By doing that, things look a lot better.
Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on the
eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.

The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
For something bigger, go higher.
For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
(My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21" CRT
at 1600x1200.)

Games are different.
There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time of
the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware acceleration
as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you have
to experiment with to see which looks best to you.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

"Frank McCoy" wrote in message
...
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Coffee Lover
wrote:

I got my resolution AS high as possible right now.
I read/heard the higher the resolution, you get a drop in performance?
1280 X 1024 right now, what's a good one for performance?

Or does it matter????????

Depends on your CPU speed and your card capability.
For most even reasonably recent boards I usually use 1600x1200 for the
desktop.
Higher resolution makes most things too small.
Even with that resolution, I pick large icons and adjust the font
sizes.
By doing that, things look a lot better.
Large scaled fonts on a higher resolution machine are just easier on
the
eye than small fonts on a lower resolution machine scaled to the same
size. They're just finer grained; and the eye sees them better.

The bigger the monitor, the more resolution you need.
On a 17" monitor, 1024x768 is probably enough.
For a 19", I'd go with what you got.
For something bigger, go higher.
For an LCD monitor, go with "native resolution".
(My LCD, for example, is 1680x1050 ... just a tad better than a 21"
CRT
at 1600x1200.)

Games are different.
There you keep raising the resolution until you see the response-time
of
the game drop. Once that happens, you drop down one step. Each game
will likely be different in this. Choose as much hardware
acceleration
as your board and game will permit. Sometimes there's a trade-off
between hardware techniques like shading and resolution. That you
have
to experiment with to see which looks best to you.

--
_____
/ ' / T
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

Frank, 1600*1200 has 156,000 more pixels than your 1680*1050. Other
than being wide-screen, how is yours a tad better?

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.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

Frank McCoy wrote:


So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
trying to understand what you are saying?

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning!

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:

Frank McCoy wrote:


So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
trying to understand what you are saying?

Well, you can put one side-by side, and SEE the difference.
However, think of it this way: On an LCD, a pixel is a pixel is a pixel.
Each has *NO* effect on the one next to it.
On a CRT, each pixel is a blurry dot. HOW blurry, depends on the native
resolution of the monitor, or "dot-pitch", along with overall monitor
size. Usually people pay no attention to dot-pitch; only the number
lines or dots it can take in as supposed "resolution". However, the
resolution of a CRT monitor mean nothing if the dot-pitch is large
enough that several pixel bleed over into each other as one dot to the
eye.
VERY few CRT monitors, except some very expensive 21" types can actually
get any benefit of much higher resolution than 1280x1024. The dot-pitch
and monitor-size work together to determine the largest *practical*
resolution for that particular monitor; even if it will *accept* much
higher resolutions as input; and the video-card will output those modes.

Thus each colored pixel on the CRT monitor "bleeds" over onto the next
one; modifying it's color unless the two adjacent pixels are nearly the
same color anyway. The overall effect is slight out-of-focus fuzziness
on higher resolutions; when the effect *should* be increased sharpness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch

Note that focus, type of screen, and a bunch of other parameters all
effect dot-pitch; and the screen-size also has lots to do with the
maximum density displayable. Divide the screen size by the dot pitch
(using the same type of measurements. Screens are measured in inches
while dot-pitch is measured in millimeters) and get the *possible*
resolution of the monitor. However, due to various CRT defects, along
with things like misalignment, and very few CRT monitors live up to
their promises.

On the other hand, EVERY pixel in an LCD monitor is separate from every
other, there's NO bleed-over, no pincushion effect, no misalignment of
three different colors even at the extreme corners, etc. Each pixel is
alone, separately addressed, and as clear and distinct from all others
at the corners as it is in the center. NO CRT monitor can make that
claim; not even those costing several thousand dollars.

Sometime LOOK at a CRT monitor with a magnifying glass, or better-yet, a
jeweler's loupe. Especially look in the corners.

Then do the same thing with an LCD panel at native resolution.

Finally, do the same thing with an LCD panel emulating some *other*
resolution than native.

The LCD panel at native resolution will outshine either of the others;
while likely the CRT will FAR outshine the LCD panel when running at
reduced resolution.

That's both the plus and the minus of LCD or plasma panels. At their
native resolution (if decently high enough) they FAR outstrip CRT
displays at similar resolutions. However, if your job requires changing
resolutions often, then you'd usually be far better off with a CRT
monitor of decent size and dot-pitch.

I really don't recommend anything less than a full 21" CRT Monitor these
days; nor an LCD panel with less than 1680x1050 (if wide-screen) or
1600x1200 (if "standard" shape).

Even a *good* 21" CRT monitor is usually being pushed past it's
dot-pitch when you select resolutions above 1600x1200; so I don't
recommend that, even though most such monitors support far higher input
resolutions. They just don't do a decent job of actually *displaying*
such stuff.

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning!

Don't think so. I know whereof I speak.
I've worked with CRT displays since long before most people here were
even born.

Like I say, LOOK at the various displays under magnification.
It's a real eye-opener.

THEN look at the two in side-by-side comparisons.
Again, if your eyes are any good, the difference is astounding.
MOST people just stand back and look at the total picture-size and think
that's what actually counts. It isn't. Dot-pitch, versus screen-size
does. Or, in an LCD panel, the equivalent is native resolution.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Mon, 21 May 2007 17:32:01 -0400, "Mr.E Solved!"
wrote:

Frank McCoy wrote:


So the LCD panel at close to the same number of pixels *greatly*
outshines the CRT at the a similar resolution.

Can you say that again for the audience at home having a hard time
trying to understand what you are saying?

That's why I bought it ... That and the CRT getting a tad jittery.

You were quite right about LCD panels being at their best at their
native resolution, you should quit while you are ahead, fair warning!


No he's right.

"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.

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt "KCB"
wrote:


"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.

Um ... It *IS* fact.
Look at both side-by-side, and you'll SEE the difference!
Especially if you use magnification.

I know ... I've got two side-by-side right here and now.
The 21" CRT looks crappy by comparison at 1600x1200 and the LCD at
1680x1050; and that's one damned *EXPENSIVE* CRT monitor!

Actually, I have *three* fairly expensive 21" monitors, all darned good
ones; and all three look crappy next to the LCD if you examine each
closely. Stand back about four feet, and you can't see any difference,
of course.

Don't believe me.
Don't take my word for it.
Go somewhere and LOOK at the two side-by-side.
There's a damned good reason for the LCD looking better by far, *IF* you
have any real knowledge of how each technology works.

I've explained it several times in this thread.
All I can say now is go *LOOK* and see for yourself.
I'm not lying; and I'm NOT exaggerating!

The CRT monitors look fuzzy and out-of-focus next to the LCD panels at
similar resolutions. Most especially so at the corners. The LCD panels
also EXACTLY fill out the screen; while with good adjustment of a CRT
you can only get *close* to doing so without either not displaying the
whole thing, or leaving black borders in some parts of the screen.

Don't believe me?
Try it yourself and see!
Geesh.

Hell, come over to my house and I'll *SHOW* you the difference,
side-by-side with the same card driving both monitors.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:03:19 -0400, "KCB"
wrote:


"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.


It may be his opinion as to why it's better for any certain
use but it is not opinion that the pixels are substantially
better defined, that this necessarily makes clearer icons
and text.