2001FP @ 1152x864 or 1280x960... impressions?

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

Do any of you have a 2001FP connected via DVI and have a moment
to comment on the display quality when running at 1152x864 and
1280x960? The first appears to be a preset, not sure whether the
monitor will play with the later.

I don't like the idea of running at non-native... some of the 17" and
19" displays I've looked at were rather hard on the eyes... but until
better scaling comes to Windows via Longhorn technology or I
have better luck at tweaking XP on higher DPI displays, the combos
I mentioned are probably my best options.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

My Dell 2001FP looks just fine and crisp at 1152x864 . I tried other
resolutions including the native 1600x1200. I prefer 1152x864

Period.

Barry
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

The native resolution is 1600x1200. That is the only resolution where it
will be crisp. Period.

LCD panels do not look good at other the the native resolution.

You should consider the 19" models as their native resolution is 1280x1024

Tom
"User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:db2dnZcZvbk9b_rfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> Do any of you have a 2001FP connected via DVI and have a moment
> to comment on the display quality when running at 1152x864 and
> 1280x960? The first appears to be a preset, not sure whether the
> monitor will play with the later.
>
> I don't like the idea of running at non-native... some of the 17" and
> 19" displays I've looked at were rather hard on the eyes... but until
> better scaling comes to Windows via Longhorn technology or I
> have better luck at tweaking XP on higher DPI displays, the combos
> I mentioned are probably my best options.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

"Tom Scales" <tomtoo@softhome.net> wrote in message news:cOZ9e.8940$716.3174@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> The native resolution is 1600x1200. That is the only resolution where it
> will be crisp. Period.

With you so far.

> LCD panels do not look good at other the the native resolution.

That's been my experience. However, I've only tried non-native on a
limited number of smaller panels which had a larger pixel pitch, and
the resolutions I tried were not terribly close to those panels' aspect
ratio. So I was hoping the 2001FP combinations I mentioned might
be a bit easier on the eyes.

> You should consider the 19" models as their native resolution is 1280x1024

I'm considering that too. But by my calculations, a 19" panel running at
1280x1024 would produce text/images that are roughly 85% of the size
of what I'm used to (19" CRT @ 1024x768). I believe 1152x864 on
my CRT is roughly 88.89% of what I'm used to, and I've never found
that comfortable. So I'm kinda stuck :-(
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

On Fri, 22 Apr 2005 03:01:28 +0000, Tom Scales wrote:
>
> The native resolution is 1600x1200. That is the only resolution where it
> will be crisp. Period.
>
> LCD panels do not look good at other the the native resolution.
>
> You should consider the 19" models as their native resolution is
> 1280x1024

What people seem to miss, as indicated below, is that this has nothing to
do with the OS, it's a limitation of the LCD technology. If you want a big
screen and don't want to run at 1600x1200, get a CRT instead of an LCD,
they are clear and sharp at any resolution.


>
> Tom
> "User N" <usern@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:db2dnZcZvbk9b_rfRVn-1g@comcast.com...
>> Do any of you have a 2001FP connected via DVI and have a moment to
>> comment on the display quality when running at 1152x864 and 1280x960?
>> The first appears to be a preset, not sure whether the monitor will
>> play with the later.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of running at non-native... some of the 17" and
>> 19" displays I've looked at were rather hard on the eyes... but until
>> better scaling comes to Windows via Longhorn technology or I have
>> better luck at tweaking XP on higher DPI displays, the combos I
>> mentioned are probably my best options.


--
spam999free@rrohio.com
remove 999 in order to email me
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell (More info?)

I have the 2000FP which resolution is 1600 x 1200. I use the setting of
800 x 600 because I prefer everything larger. I just changed to the two
setting you want and I see no difference in any of the resolutions
except everything is smaller. I have the DVI and everything is crystal
clear. Right now I'm finishing this reply in the 1280x960 and it really
very nice and I'm 71 years old and this 1280x960 is not hurting my eyes.
I'm just used to larger 800x600. I like to go on the web with the
entire screen filled on a large monitor, not the other resolutions where
you do not fill up the screen. You have two wide blank areas on each
side of the web screen. I really think you will like the 2001FP, I love
mine.

Joan

User N wrote:
> Do any of you have a 2001FP connected via DVI and have a moment
> to comment on the display quality when running at 1152x864 and
> 1280x960? The first appears to be a preset, not sure whether the
> monitor will play with the later.
>
> I don't like the idea of running at non-native... some of the 17" and
> 19" displays I've looked at were rather hard on the eyes... but until
> better scaling comes to Windows via Longhorn technology or I
> have better luck at tweaking XP on higher DPI displays, the combos
> I mentioned are probably my best options.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY