3 ms·

There are a lot of people out there, myself included, that don't have great vision, that desperately want bigger pixels, not smaller pixels. The small pixel pe

by Teckla 16y ago

There are a lot of people out there, myself included, that don't have great vision, that desperately want bigger pixels, not smaller pixels. The small pixel people are winning. :(

51Cards 16y ago
Trust me, I do understand that well too. My girlfriend has very poor vision, borderline legally blind for driving. When we purchased a notebook for her we went with a 17" screen but also very high resolution. I then used Windows DPI scaling to bring everything up to a size she can read easily but the high native resolution keeps the image nice and sharp. She was very pleased with the results and can use it with ease.
- Teckla 16y ago
  Windows DPI scaling used to not work very well. Maybe it has improved. For example, I remember Windows XP applications with text running off the edges of windows and buttons. Perhaps Windows DPI scaling is a reasonable option now.
jodrellblank 16y ago
Winning? The 17" CRT I had 13 years ago was good at 1280x1024 and could do 1600x1200. We're so not-winning that everyday resolution has barely changed since then; for a similar price now a careful 24" purchase gets 1900x1200 and a careless one gets 23" 1920x1080. For comparison, IBM was releasing an 18Gb mid-range notebook hard drive in 1999, now 320/500/640Gb fight out the mid £40 price range.
- robotblake 16y ago
  You're comparing two completely different technologies though, that'd be like me complaining about how we're "so not-winning" with the size and price of SSDs. Side Note: A 23" monitor purchase is not necessarily a "careless" one, for example the NEC model I use has one of the nicest feature sets for the price (fully adjustable base, IPS panel) but is only available in a 23.1" 1920x1080 version.
  - jodrellblank 16y ago
    I'm not directly comparing two technologies, just comparing the rate of change in them. 1024 to 1080 is an increase of 56 vertical pixels. That has to be one of the slowest changing metrics in modern computing. What I meant by careless is that if you shop a typical desktop dcreen by price you will get 1920x1080 at 22/23/24 screens; you can buy 1900x1200 but you need to carefully find one because they are uncommon. Sure you can both 'care' and buy a screen like you have. But you can't not-care and have a chance at ending up with the higher resolution. And you can get that res. for 24" £130, but a significant jump needs 27" or 30" screens - and 27" start with the same resolution! You need £730 for a 27" with higher resolution and £1200 for a 30". And that 6x multiplier gets you 1.5x more vertical pixels. (How is that high-res small-pixel people 'winning'?)

by Teckla 16y ago

There are a lot of people out there, myself included, that don't have great vision, that desperately want bigger pixels, not smaller pixels. The small pixel people are winning. :(

51Cards 16y ago

Trust me, I do understand that well too. My girlfriend has very poor vision, borderline legally blind for driving. When we purchased a notebook for her we went with a 17" screen but also very high resolution. I then used Windows DPI scaling to bring everything up to a size she can read easily but the high native resolution keeps the image nice and sharp. She was very pleased with the results and can use it with ease.

Teckla 16y ago
Windows DPI scaling used to not work very well. Maybe it has improved. For example, I remember Windows XP applications with text running off the edges of windows and buttons. Perhaps Windows DPI scaling is a reasonable option now.

jodrellblank 16y ago

Winning? The 17" CRT I had 13 years ago was good at 1280x1024 and could do 1600x1200. We're so not-winning that everyday resolution has barely changed since then; for a similar price now a careful 24" purchase gets 1900x1200 and a careless one gets 23" 1920x1080. For comparison, IBM was releasing an 18Gb mid-range notebook hard drive in 1999, now 320/500/640Gb fight out the mid £40 price range.

robotblake 16y ago
You're comparing two completely different technologies though, that'd be like me complaining about how we're "so not-winning" with the size and price of SSDs. Side Note: A 23" monitor purchase is not necessarily a "careless" one, for example the NEC model I use has one of the nicest feature sets for the price (fully adjustable base, IPS panel) but is only available in a 23.1" 1920x1080 version.
- jodrellblank 16y ago
  I'm not directly comparing two technologies, just comparing the rate of change in them. 1024 to 1080 is an increase of 56 vertical pixels. That has to be one of the slowest changing metrics in modern computing. What I meant by careless is that if you shop a typical desktop dcreen by price you will get 1920x1080 at 22/23/24 screens; you can buy 1900x1200 but you need to carefully find one because they are uncommon. Sure you can both 'care' and buy a screen like you have. But you can't not-care and have a chance at ending up with the higher resolution. And you can get that res. for 24" £130, but a significant jump needs 27" or 30" screens - and 27" start with the same resolution! You need £730 for a 27" with higher resolution and £1200 for a 30". And that 6x multiplier gets you 1.5x more vertical pixels. (How is that high-res small-pixel people 'winning'?)