Are 19/20 inch LCD screens at 1600x1200 usable?

[orenb]

I just bought a Dell 2007FP 20 inch screen. It seems to be a good screen in terms of display quality, but I find its 1600x1200 optimum resolution to be a problem - text is simply too small to read comfortably. The high resolution also dwarfs 800x600 images posted in most websites. In fact, most of the images I'm posting to forums are not higher than 540 pixels. I choose this size to be sure that images are fully visible to users of (the very common) 1024x768 resolution who are not aware of Full screen browser mode (or simply don't like using it).

I'm looking at the possible solutions, from what I see they are all lacking:

1. Using a lower resolution (e.g. 1280x960) results in blurry text due interpolation. The blurry display also makes it impossible to accurately sharpen images.
2. Using a larger font size results in truncated labels on menus and buttons. It also truncates the file and folder names displayed on the desktop.
3. Returning the screen and getting a 1280x1024 19 inch LCD screen instead (e.g. ViewSonic VP930) is likely to result in lower display quality in other aspects (the 2007FP uses an ISPS panel, and those are considering the best for photo editing and graphic work)
4. Returning the screen and getting a good CRT screen is not practical, as none of those seem to be available anymore. In addition, I really like working in portrait mode (vertical orientation) and this is not possible with CRT screens.

In the time when 1280x1024 17 inch LCD were common I always found text to be too small, a fact that made me prefer CRT screens. But in the last year I used a 1280x1024 19 inch screen at work (CTX P972) and really enjoyed using it. It turns out that 1280x1024 is fine for a 19 inch screen, but too small for a 17 inch one. It was a bad oversight on my part to not notice that the 2007FP optimal resolution is in fact higher (1600x1200) and in turn the old small text problem is back.

Any suggestions?

Thanks!

 

[oscar6]

Open two windows and have them "tiled vertically" so each takes up half the screen and each is 800 pixels wide.

 

[orenb]

I don't see how two windows would make fonts or pictures bigger. Please elaborate.

 

[myocardia]

It wouldn't. You're either gonna have to go dual monitor, with a ~$200 19" 1280x1024 monitor for things like web browsing & text documents, plus your 2007FP, unless you can find a nice, used CRT.

 

[cockeyed]

Yes, the 20" 1600 x 1200 screen is very usable. I found that if I use the settings for DPI, set to 120% or 125%, everything looks fine. Just setting the font size for icon, menus, etc., did not adjust other things in proportion to the font size. Try setting default font sizes back to 96dpi , then adjust using the larger DPI as I mentioned and it should solve the truncation problem. If it doesn't, you might try deleting the video driver then reinstalling or you might even find that you need to do a clean Windows install. I've had problems with this and could only get things right by re-installation.

I use an Envision Pro 8-bit, 1600 x 1200 at 120% DPI in Vista (clean install); 19" and 22" LCD's now look bad to me. The 1600x1200 reso., is much sharper and is just as readable when setup properly. I tried a 22" LCD recently, and took it back after one day. Print looked grainy and the 6-bit TN panel was darker at the top then the bottom. Once you get your 2007FP setup properly, I think you will be happy with the size, 8-bit color and sharp resolution.

Good luck!

 

[orenb]

Originally posted by: cockeyed
Yes, the 20" 1600 x 1200 screen is very usable. I found that if I use the settings for DPI, set to 120% or 125%, everything looks fine. Just setting the font size for icon, menus, etc., did not adjust other things in proportion to the font size. Try setting default font sizes back to 96dpi , then adjust using the larger DPI as I mentioned and it should solve the truncation problem.

Are long filenames (of desktop icons) truncated in the same character regardless of DPI? Could this be unique to Vista? In XP, names are truncated earlier when using higher DPI (e.g. 120%).

I use an Envision Pro 8-bit, 1600 x 1200 at 120% DPI in Vista (clean install); 19" and 22" LCD's now look bad to me. The 1600x1200 reso., is much sharper and is just as readable when setup properly. I tried a 22" LCD recently, and took it back after one day. Print looked grainy and the 6-bit TN panel was darker at the top then the bottom. Once you get your 2007FP setup properly, I think you will be happy with the size, 8-bit color and sharp resolution.

Besides text size, don't you find 800x600 images look tiny compared to what they look like in lower screen resolutions?

 

[PingSpike]

Yeah, this is a pretty common problem with LCDs. And we get to deal with it, since CRTs are all but dead. I like LCDs in most ways, but I really wish there were more options for panel types.

I have a 22" WS myself, which most people say the panels on are inferior. They probably are, but it looks ok to me. I was straining to see text all the time on my 20" WS before this.

 

[cockeyed]

Originally posted by: orenb

Originally posted by: cockeyed
Yes, the 20" 1600 x 1200 screen is very usable. I found that if I use the settings for DPI, set to 120% or 125%, everything looks fine. Just setting the font size for icon, menus, etc., did not adjust other things in proportion to the font size. Try setting default font sizes back to 96dpi , then adjust using the larger DPI as I mentioned and it should solve the truncation problem.

Are long filenames (of desktop icons) truncated in the same character regardless of DPI? Could this be unique to Vista? In XP, names are truncated earlier when using higher DPI (e.g. 120%).

I use an Envision Pro 8-bit, 1600 x 1200 at 120% DPI in Vista (clean install); 19" and 22" LCD's now look bad to me. The 1600x1200 reso., is much sharper and is just as readable when setup properly. I tried a 22" LCD recently, and took it back after one day. Print looked grainy and the 6-bit TN panel was darker at the top then the bottom. Once you get your 2007FP setup properly, I think you will be happy with the size, 8-bit color and sharp resolution.

Besides text size, don't you find 800x600 images look tiny compared to what they look like in lower screen resolutions?

I'm not experiencing any truncation problems. In 1600x1200 @ 120 DPI. Maybe try changing the icon H/V spacing.

As for an 800x600 jpg, I DL'd a picture to see what it looks like. In Picasa and Win Photo gallery, it measures 8"w x 6"H.; looks good to me. If I want it any larger I zoom it up but see no need to. You might want to compare this against yours to see if there is any size difference.

When I first got my 16x12 display I used WinXP and I wasn't real thrilled about the size of things either. Larger font sizes didn't help alot and windows appeared too small. As I recall, my system got messed up and I had to perform a clean XP install. All of a sudden things looked better on my LCD but I don't know why, maybe old graphics files. When I got Vista, I did a fresh install on a new HDD and the size of fonts and windows is easy on the eyes at 120DPI. On mine, this "AT Reply window" pop-up measures 6-1/2"H x 7"W, if you want to do a comparison to yours.

As this is drastic, I'm not suggesting that you do a clean install, but I'm just relating what I experienced. I couldn't be happier with the way mine looks in terms of size and clarity. Just keep trying things and you might find the magic solution as I did. Maybe someone else will provide some ideas and the experience they had with 1600 x 1200 LCD's.

 

[BladeVenom]

My old laptop was 1600x1200 on a 15" screen, and I liked that resolution.

 

[apoppin]

i have an entirely different problem due to my [extreme] myopia

when i thought my CRT failed [it was the off-on switch ], i went shopping for a LCD ... i liked the 16x10 resolution but hated the 22" width so i originally settled for a 14x9 19" cheapie Acer. And it bugged the hell out of me without my glasses [when i get tired] as i can see each individual pixel ... so i kept my glasses on and my distance

OTOH, with my current Samsung 205BW 20" 16x10 [another "cheapie" i got due to luck at Staples for $135] i can enjoy the display with or without glasses [or contacts]
... so in this case, nearsightedness helps me. And yeah, make the fonts bigger.

 

[orenb]

Thanks for all the comments.

As good as the 2007FP is, I couldn't live with the 1600x1200 resolution no matter what I tried. I returned it and bought a second-hand LG F900P CRT instead, and I'm much happier with it.

 

[hans007]

i guess it depends on your eyes.

i use 2 of that monitor at work and i think its plenty big. you might want to buy a 22" 1680x1050 ...

 

[j0j081]

I have the Samsung 206bw and found the text to be too small as well for extended periods of use. I like the high resolution for other things though like viewing images on the web because they are getting larger and larger nowadays. I resolved my problem by setting the font DPI to 104 which I found makes it about equal to the font size of my old 19 inch ws. Vista scales everything quite nicely including the menus and stuff so I am happy.

 

[jmmtn4aj]

I guess it's because I've been using a 17" 1280x1024 (about the same pixel size) for so long that I find my screen (VX2025wm) very usable

For webpages, just hold control and move your mouse's scroll wheel. Fixes the font size issue quickly.

 

[hans007]

i think i'm pretty used to small dot pitch. when i was a kid i ran 1280x1024 @ 60hz on a 17" crt and 19" with 1600x1200@75hz (that was after scrapping together the money in high school).

honestly its probably ruined my eye sight, wish LCDs had been around earlier as i love my nec 20wmgx2. i'm a programmer though and well ask any programmer and the most pixels per square inch thebetter.

 

[betasub]

I have no problem with text on small pixel pitch LCDs, thanks to my optician. Corrective lenses allow me to work at a standard desktop distance of ~3'(~1m) even on small pixel pitches such as 0.254 on the 20" panel. FWIW 19" 1280x1024 as the largest pixel pitch of commonly available PC LCD screens.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I have used a Dell 2001FP @ 1600x1200 for years (of course it is "in my face").

 

[BernardP]

apoppin, if you can look at your monitor with or without glasses, your myopia is far from extreme. As it means you are still within your clear zone at about 18 inches, your myopia should be somewhere around -2.00D and -4.00D, which is considered moderate.

High myopia is more like you humble servant: -12.00D. My clear zone ends 3 or 4 inches from my eyes. Not funny.

In fact, you probably have the "ideal" myopia, as when you get older, you will be able to read without those annoying "plus" or convex reading glasses. You myopia is about the equivalent as wearing such convex lenses all the time.

-----------------------------------------------

Back to the OP subject. For obvious reasons, I also have to use a non-native larger resolution. Messing around with DPI is never entirely satisfactory, as there are always things that persist is remaining too small on-screen, for example in Internet Explorer or other browsers, as many pages have font size that is hard-coded and won't respond to selecting larger fonts in browser preferences.

The best solution I have found is to get an NVIdia graphics card or integrated graphics with DVI-out (mandatory), create custom resolutions and choose NVidia Scaling, to have the scaling done in the videocard, not the monitor. This doesn't work with a standard VGA connection. With ATI, my undestanding is that this feature might, but also might not work.

One can thus create and use any resolution, without limitations inherent to the monitor built-in scaler. The display quality is not as good as native of course, but very good and quite acceptable. On my 24-inch widescreen monitor, I am using a custom 1360x850 resolution.

 

[postmortemIA]

I have 20" 1600x1200 and I have increased DPI slightly, to 102 or so..still more space than 19" and still finer text.
Linux works really well with dpi changes, windows doesn't due to whole bunch of legacy stuff and it was up to developers, who almost never care for anything other than 96dpi.

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: BernardP
apoppin, if you can look at your monitor with or without glasses, your myopia is far from extreme. As it means you are still within your clear zone at about 18 inches, your myopia should be somewhere around -2.00D and -4.00D, which is considered moderate.

High myopia is more like you humble servant: -12.00D. My clear zone ends 3 or 4 inches from my eyes. Not funny.

In fact, you probably have the "ideal" myopia, as when you get older, you will be able to read without those annoying "plus" or convex reading glasses. You myopia is about the equivalent as wearing such convex lenses all the time.

-----------------------------------------------

Back to the OP subject. For obvious reasons, I also have to use a non-native larger resolution. Messing around with DPI is never entirely satisfactory, as there are always things that persist is remaining too small on-screen, for example in Internet Explorer or other browsers, as many pages have font size that is hard-coded and won't respond to selecting larger fonts in browser preferences.

The best solution I have found is to get an NVIdia graphics card or integrated graphics with DVI-out (mandatory), create custom resolutions and choose NVidia Scaling, to have the scaling done in the videocard, not the monitor. This doesn't work with a standard VGA connection. With ATI, my undestanding is that this feature might, but also might not work.

One can thus create and use any resolution, without limitations inherent to the monitor built-in scaler. The display quality is not as good as native of course, but very good and quite acceptable. On my 24-inch widescreen monitor, I am using a custom 1360x850 resolution.

thanks, Bernard ... but i am already "older"
. . . and my clear zone is less than a foot but i am just more comfortable without glasses if i am in front of my display for hours ... my panel is the best *compromise* i could find .... and i also use the custom font sizes

 

[Bateluer]

I went from a 17in LCD to a 20in 2005FPW to my current 2407FPW. There's no going back to smaller panels or CRTs.

I don't increase the text size in windows, but even when I do, it only truncates the longer names. Not really a big enough to castrate myself with an inferior display. The goal is to pick up a 30in+ panel with a 2560x1600 or greater resolution when the prices drop a bit more, or my income increases.

 

[cockeyed]

Here is a LINK to how Vista scales the DPI. Hover over the different DPI settings to see the effect of changing DPI settings in Vista.

If you're not using Vista, this feature alone might make the upgrade worthwhile. I use Vista with a 20" - 1600x1200 and couldn't be happier with the window and font size.

Google "vista dpi scaling" for much more info on this subject.

 

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: cockeyed
Here is a LINK to how Vista scales the DPI. Hover over the different DPI settings to see the effect of changing DPI settings in Vista.

This is very interesting, and it also shows the limitations of DPI scaling. See, for example, how the clock and Post-it stay the same size whatever DPI option is selected. There is still nothing as versatile as all the perfect custom resolutions that can be set on a CRT. Having a good LCD monitor with high pixel density, plus using the videocard to scale "my" optimal custom resolution is a viable second-best.

 

[nwrigley]

I'm having similar problems adjusting to the Dell 2007fp at work. I'm still playing around with settings in XP. Oddly enough, 17" panels don't bother me at 1280x1024, but I guess they are the lowest pixel pitch that I am naturally comfortable with. I also think it's because I have to sit further away from the larger screen to comfortably see all of it.

My Samsung 215tw 21" widescreen at home doesn't give me any problems and everything feels much larger. I haven't adjusted the dpi or anything on the Samsung, but I'm running Vista so I wonder if that is making a difference.