|
| If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|||||||
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
June 19th 16, 05:33 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
I'd appreciate some advice about buying a new monitor please. My much postponed Win 10 high end PC will be delivered soon. I will be running it in parallel with my current seven year old XP PC for as long as necessary. I've been quite happy with my ilyama 24" monitor (E2403WS) , with resolution set to 1920 X 1200. But I'm thinking of stepping up to maybe a 26/28/30" unit to get a bit more desktop space. What would be the maximum size screen that would still give me a crisp display with that same resolution please? IOW at what size would I start to see deterioration?
Alternatively, if I set it to a higher resolution, what minimum screen size would I need to ensure my ageing eyes could still comfortably read text and icons? Terry, East Grinstead, UK 
|
| Ads |
|
#2
June 19th 16, 06:27 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
|
|
#3
June 19th 16, 06:32 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
|
|
#4
June 19th 16, 07:45 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
|
|
#5
June 19th 16, 11:01 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
wrote:
I'd appreciate some advice about buying a new monitor please. My much postponed Win 10 high end PC will be delivered soon. I will be running it in parallel with my current seven year old XP PC for as long as necessary. I've been quite happy with my ilyama 24" monitor (E2403WS) , with resolution set to 1920 X 1200. But I'm thinking of stepping up to maybe a 26/28/30" unit to get a bit more desktop space. What would be the maximum size screen that would still give me a crisp display with that same resolution please? IOW at what size would I start to see deterioration? Alternatively, if I set it to a higher resolution, what minimum screen size would I need to ensure my ageing eyes could still comfortably read text and icons? Terry, East Grinstead, UK I can find a 2560x1600 at 30" diagonal. A thousand bucks. One guy got a good monitor, on his fourth try. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824260132 1920/1200 = 1.6 2560/1600 = 1.6 NEC has some similar monitors at $2200 and $3000. Those would be suitable for Photoshoppers. One would hope, at that price, the product comes with a flunky to read the screen for you, make coffee or tea for you, adjust your swivel chair. At 4K or 5K pixels, the aspect ratio is back to 1.77. So I don't see a possibility above that, that "looks" like your existing screen. So 2560x1600 appears to be the "new 1920x1200" :-) And you won't be using an FX5200 video card to drive that. You will need to spend a week researching how high-res video cabling works, to make sure you've got the right video card. It's even possible your existing video card goes that high. DisplayPort handles quite high resolutions. DisplayPort also has MST (Multi-Stream Transport) and some large panels, are actually arranged electronically as two panels side by side, And MST is used to split a DisplayPort and drive the two sub-panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displayport HDMI 1.3 can reach that resolution. So you're not forced to hunt down an HDMI 2.0 solution. It's possible HDMI 2.0 supports some newer version of HDCP. There is no mention of MST in here. You may want to research HDMI 2.0 carefully, before buying any. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI You may be able to determine from the monitor interface connectors, whether it involves MST or not. Maybe if it only has DisplayPort, that signals it could be MST based. Nice blue-sky research topics. And the usual details about matte and gloss finish. If your room lighting allows, sometimes a gloss finish has less parallax caused by the outer glass. But some people swear by matte, because they're very sensitive to reflections of materials behind them. Monitors this big, could have a fair amount of latency in the display path. That means, what you see on the screen, could be four frames delayed with respect to the computer game state inside your computer. If you play First Person Shooter video games, sometimes it's just better to select a low latency monitor, and just accept whatever resolution and size it comes in. All we can reasonably expect from these monitors, is they might be suitable for Photoshop (as long as dynamic contrast can be turned off), web browsing and email. If you have other whizzy requirements, these big monitors might not be the best choice. Like if you needed 144Hz so you could use some 3D glasses you bought. Paul
|
|
#6
June 20th 16, 12:51 AM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
On Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:01:53 -0400, Paul wrote:
wrote: I'd appreciate some advice about buying a new monitor please. My much postponed Win 10 high end PC will be delivered soon. I will be running it in parallel with my current seven year old XP PC for as long as necessary. I've been quite happy with my ilyama 24" monitor (E2403WS) , with resolution set to 1920 X 1200. But I'm thinking of stepping up to maybe a 26/28/30" unit to get a bit more desktop space. What would be the maximum size screen that would still give me a crisp display with that same resolution please? IOW at what size would I start to see deterioration? Alternatively, if I set it to a higher resolution, what minimum screen size would I need to ensure my ageing eyes could still comfortably read text and icons? Terry, East Grinstead, UK I can find a 2560x1600 at 30" diagonal. A thousand bucks. One guy got a good monitor, on his fourth try. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16824260132 1920/1200 = 1.6 2560/1600 = 1.6 NEC has some similar monitors at $2200 and $3000. Those would be suitable for Photoshoppers. One would hope, at that price, the product comes with a flunky to read the screen for you, make coffee or tea for you, adjust your swivel chair. At 4K or 5K pixels, the aspect ratio is back to 1.77. So I don't see a possibility above that, that "looks" like your existing screen. So 2560x1600 appears to be the "new 1920x1200" :-) And you won't be using an FX5200 video card to drive that. You will need to spend a week researching how high-res video cabling works, to make sure you've got the right video card. It's even possible your existing video card goes that high. DisplayPort handles quite high resolutions. DisplayPort also has MST (Multi-Stream Transport) and some large panels, are actually arranged electronically as two panels side by side, And MST is used to split a DisplayPort and drive the two sub-panels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Displayport HDMI 1.3 can reach that resolution. So you're not forced to hunt down an HDMI 2.0 solution. It's possible HDMI 2.0 supports some newer version of HDCP. There is no mention of MST in here. You may want to research HDMI 2.0 carefully, before buying any. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI You may be able to determine from the monitor interface connectors, whether it involves MST or not. Maybe if it only has DisplayPort, that signals it could be MST based. Nice blue-sky research topics. And the usual details about matte and gloss finish. If your room lighting allows, sometimes a gloss finish has less parallax caused by the outer glass. But some people swear by matte, because they're very sensitive to reflections of materials behind them. Monitors this big, could have a fair amount of latency in the display path. That means, what you see on the screen, could be four frames delayed with respect to the computer game state inside your computer. If you play First Person Shooter video games, sometimes it's just better to select a low latency monitor, and just accept whatever resolution and size it comes in. All we can reasonably expect from these monitors, is they might be suitable for Photoshop (as long as dynamic contrast can be turned off), web browsing and email. If you have other whizzy requirements, these big monitors might not be the best choice. Like if you needed 144Hz so you could use some 3D glasses you bought. Paul
|
|
#7
June 20th 16, 02:20 AM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
On 6/19/2016 11:45 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , writes: I'd appreciate some advice about buying a new monitor please. My much postponed Win 10 high end PC will be delivered soon. I will be running it in parallel with my current seven year old XP PC for as long as necessary. I've been quite happy with my ilyama 24" monitor (E2403WS) , with resolution set to 1920 X 1200. But I'm thinking of stepping up to maybe a 26/28/30" unit to get a bit more desktop space. What would be the maximum size screen that would still give me a crisp display with that same resolution please? IOW at what size would I start to see deterioration? Alternatively, if I set it to a higher resolution, what minimum screen size would I need to ensure my ageing eyes could still comfortably read text and icons? Terry, East Grinstead, UK Modern (i. e. non-CRT) monitors have a native resolution - in other words, they are made of actual pixels, at a fixed resolution. So _any_ resolution that is not either that exact one, or an exact sub-multiple (half, third, quarter), will give a display that isn't totally "crisp". Whether this non-crispness is actually visible from any distance is a matter of continuous, and largely pointless, discussion. 1920 by 1200 is quite high; to display that without _any_ fuzziness, you're going to need a monitor whose native resolution is wither 1920 by 1200, or some multiple - the first being 3840 by 2400. I'm not sure if that's common - I don't think so. Many different issues have been discussed here. Exactly what are you trying to accomplish? The key lies in, "Is there any single task that requires more than 1920x1280 pixel resolution?" If that's true, you need to tell the computer that you have more pixels available. That explodes into many issues with the capabilities of your video card, your new display and the pixel ratios of all those conversions. The solution is unlikely to be simple or cheap. If you want more desktop space, you have much the same problem. You have to convince the computer you have more pixels and find a display that can display that with an exact integer ratio. If you don't have any single task that requires more resolution, I'd recommend a much simpler, cheaper and better solution. Use two monitors. Put your primary task on one and all the secondary stuff on the other screen. You only have to turn on the second screen when you need the space. If your eyesight is a problem, suggest you get a pair of eyeglasses optimized for computer use. I have one prescription for sitting up close using the keyboard and another for leaning back in the easy chair with the wireless mouse. I have one computer for watching time-shifted TV with a 24" 1920x1080 screen optimized for TV kinds of stuff. The main computer has a 24" 1920x1200 screen for computing stuff. Both monitors have multiple inputs, so if I need more desktop space, I punch the button on the TV monitor and now have twice the desktop space on my main computer. If you don't need a lot of extra desktop space, the second monitor can be a 1280x1024 monitor from the free box at a garage sale. No fuss, no muss, no expensive high resolution monitors, no expensive video cards, it just works.
|
|
#9
June 20th 16, 10:45 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote:
In message , writes: I'd appreciate some advice about buying a new monitor please. My much postponed Win 10 high end PC will be delivered soon. I will be running it in parallel with my current seven year old XP PC for as long as necessary. I've been quite happy with my ilyama 24" monitor (E2403WS) , with resolution set to 1920 X 1200. But I'm thinking of stepping up to maybe a 26/28/30" unit to get a bit more desktop space. What would be the maximum size screen that would still give me a crisp display with that same resolution please? IOW at what size would I start to see deterioration? Alternatively, if I set it to a higher resolution, what minimum screen size would I need to ensure my ageing eyes could still comfortably read text and icons? Terry, East Grinstead, UK Modern (i. e. non-CRT) monitors have a native resolution - in other words, they are made of actual pixels, at a fixed resolution. So _any_ resolution that is not either that exact one, or an exact sub-multiple (half, third, quarter), will give a display that isn't totally "crisp". Whether this non-crispness is actually visible from any distance is a matter of continuous, and largely pointless, discussion. 1920 by 1200 is quite high; to display that without _any_ fuzziness, you're going to need a monitor whose native resolution is wither 1920 by 1200, or some multiple - the first being 3840 by 2400. I'm not sure if that's common - I don't think so. Thanks for all the replies so far, although some of them seem a bit complicated for what I'd have thought was a rather basic question! Maybe I'll look at 1920 x 1080 instead - or buy another ProLite E2403WS or its successor. I'd be interested to know what's the most popular desktop monitor screen size these days? -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK
|
|
#10
June 21st 16, 05:20 AM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
Terry Pinnell wrote:
I'd be interested to know what's the most popular desktop monitor screen size these days? On the Newegg listing, you can sort by "Best Selling", and the top three are 1920x1080. You should not trust their ability to "Sort" things on that site, but I think that's a decent indicator. Most consumers are driven by price, and will buy absolutely horrible displays... if the price is right. ******* They've stopped making the 15" 1024x768 monitors, so you don't have to worry about those being the best seller any more :-) I'm not a big fan of 1.77:1 monitors, and I'd be shopping for something with a bit more vertical. I'd probably look for a 1920x1200 if I could find one. The monitor on my other machine is 1440x900 (1.6) and that is good enough, and that monitor was only $100. It's held up surprisingly well for a cheap monitor. 1280x1024 (my current monitor - 1.25) original price $1000 (there is a story there...) 1440x900 (monitor on Test Machine, 1.6) sale price $100 1920x1200 (1.6) alternatives I might buy... 2560x1600 (1.6) This is the biggest one I could find, resolution wise. Which would be good for movies, but might seem a little "cramped" vertically :-) 5120x2880 (1.78) $1540 (a steal) needs two DisplayPort cables to drive it (a dual-panel which exceeds MST capabilities) Note that extremely high DPI, brings out the worst in the software. Firefox can become confused when it hits around 2:1 ratio (scaling everything by 200% so you can see it). Usually 4K is nothing but a PITA - but there is "no substitute for pixels" if you really need them. To some extent, large monitors or displays are self defeating, as you have to move them further back from your chair to use them. Find an article on ergonomics before going nuts on a really big display. Paul
|
|
#11
June 21st 16, 11:08 AM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
On 6/20/2016 9:20 PM, Paul wrote:
Terry Pinnell wrote: I'd be interested to know what's the most popular desktop monitor screen size these days? On the Newegg listing, you can sort by "Best Selling", and the top three are 1920x1080. You should not trust their ability to "Sort" things on that site, but I think that's a decent indicator. Most consumers are driven by price, and will buy absolutely horrible displays... if the price is right. ******* They've stopped making the 15" 1024x768 monitors, so you don't have to worry about those being the best seller any more :-) I'm not a big fan of 1.77:1 monitors, and I'd be shopping for something with a bit more vertical. I'd probably look for a 1920x1200 if I could find one. The monitor on my other machine is 1440x900 (1.6) and that is good enough, and that monitor was only $100. It's held up surprisingly well for a cheap monitor. 1280x1024 (my current monitor - 1.25) original price $1000 (there is a story there...) 1440x900 (monitor on Test Machine, 1.6) sale price $100 1920x1200 (1.6) alternatives I might buy... 2560x1600 (1.6) This is the biggest one I could find, resolution wise. Which would be good for movies, but might seem a little "cramped" vertically :-) 5120x2880 (1.78) $1540 (a steal) needs two DisplayPort cables to drive it (a dual-panel which exceeds MST capabilities) Note that extremely high DPI, brings out the worst in the software. Firefox can become confused when it hits around 2:1 ratio (scaling everything by 200% so you can see it). Usually 4K is nothing but a PITA - but there is "no substitute for pixels" if you really need them. To some extent, large monitors or displays are self defeating, as you have to move them further back from your chair to use them. Find an article on ergonomics before going nuts on a really big display. Paul My monitor rotates 90 degrees fairly easily. I find 1200x1920 very nice for text-related things, but the web is decidedly oriented the other way, so I don't do it much.
|
|
#12
June 21st 16, 01:52 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
Paul wrote:
Terry Pinnell wrote: I'd be interested to know what's the most popular desktop monitor screen size these days? On the Newegg listing, you can sort by "Best Selling", and the top three are 1920x1080. You should not trust their ability to "Sort" things on that site, but I think that's a decent indicator. Most consumers are driven by price, and will buy absolutely horrible displays... if the price is right. ******* They've stopped making the 15" 1024x768 monitors, so you don't have to worry about those being the best seller any more :-) I'm not a big fan of 1.77:1 monitors, and I'd be shopping for something with a bit more vertical. I'd probably look for a 1920x1200 if I could find one. The monitor on my other machine is 1440x900 (1.6) and that is good enough, and that monitor was only $100. It's held up surprisingly well for a cheap monitor. 1280x1024 (my current monitor - 1.25) original price $1000 (there is a story there...) 1440x900 (monitor on Test Machine, 1.6) sale price $100 1920x1200 (1.6) alternatives I might buy... 2560x1600 (1.6) This is the biggest one I could find, resolution wise. Which would be good for movies, but might seem a little "cramped" vertically :-) 5120x2880 (1.78) $1540 (a steal) needs two DisplayPort cables to drive it (a dual-panel which exceeds MST capabilities) Note that extremely high DPI, brings out the worst in the software. Firefox can become confused when it hits around 2:1 ratio (scaling everything by 200% so you can see it). Usually 4K is nothing but a PITA - but there is "no substitute for pixels" if you really need them. To some extent, large monitors or displays are self defeating, as you have to move them further back from your chair to use them. Find an article on ergonomics before going nuts on a really big display. Paul Thanks for that helpful follow-up, Paul. My varifocals for general use are unsatisfactory at the PC, so for about ten years I've been using a cheap pair designed for 20" (50 cm). I reckon a 30" monitor might be as high as I could comfortably use. Anyone tried these curved screens? I make family DVDs/videos and so use an image editor and video editor a lot. Presumably, selecting rectangles from an image (a frequent operation) takes some getting used to with a physically curved monitor? I installed the new PC yesterday and have temporarily borrowed the Acer P195HQ from my shed workshop's ancient PC. It populates its 19.5" with 1366 x 768 pixels (16:9) and doesn't look too bad. But it's very low, needing what seems to be the very common approach of looking slightly downward across the KB. Ergonomically very poor long term I gather. Its centre is little more than 9" above the desk, compared with about 17" for the 1920 x 1080 24" Prolite. Many of the technical points in your earlier post were above my know-how level, but can I make sure I understand one key point that's still confusing me please. Despite my video work I elected (for now at least) not to specify an independent graphics card in my i7 6700K PC. I'm relying on recommendations from a couple of friends (and the supplier of my NLE, Magix) that its inbuilt Intel HD Graphics 530 should be well up to the task. So my question is: will that have any bearing on my choice of monitor? I assume *not*, because as I understand it, every monitor has just ONE optimum resolution (presumably closely related to its physical size) and it's *that* which is the primary factor? Will the combination of Win 10 and the hardware graphics cope with just about any resolution? -- Terry Pinnell, East Grinstead, UK
|
|
#13
June 21st 16, 08:48 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
Terry Pinnell wrote:
Paul wrote: Terry Pinnell wrote: I'd be interested to know what's the most popular desktop monitor screen size these days? On the Newegg listing, you can sort by "Best Selling", and the top three are 1920x1080. You should not trust their ability to "Sort" things on that site, but I think that's a decent indicator. Most consumers are driven by price, and will buy absolutely horrible displays... if the price is right. ******* They've stopped making the 15" 1024x768 monitors, so you don't have to worry about those being the best seller any more :-) I'm not a big fan of 1.77:1 monitors, and I'd be shopping for something with a bit more vertical. I'd probably look for a 1920x1200 if I could find one. The monitor on my other machine is 1440x900 (1.6) and that is good enough, and that monitor was only $100. It's held up surprisingly well for a cheap monitor. 1280x1024 (my current monitor - 1.25) original price $1000 (there is a story there...) 1440x900 (monitor on Test Machine, 1.6) sale price $100 1920x1200 (1.6) alternatives I might buy... 2560x1600 (1.6) This is the biggest one I could find, resolution wise. Which would be good for movies, but might seem a little "cramped" vertically :-) 5120x2880 (1.78) $1540 (a steal) needs two DisplayPort cables to drive it (a dual-panel which exceeds MST capabilities) Note that extremely high DPI, brings out the worst in the software. Firefox can become confused when it hits around 2:1 ratio (scaling everything by 200% so you can see it). Usually 4K is nothing but a PITA - but there is "no substitute for pixels" if you really need them. To some extent, large monitors or displays are self defeating, as you have to move them further back from your chair to use them. Find an article on ergonomics before going nuts on a really big display. Paul Thanks for that helpful follow-up, Paul. My varifocals for general use are unsatisfactory at the PC, so for about ten years I've been using a cheap pair designed for 20" (50 cm). I reckon a 30" monitor might be as high as I could comfortably use. Anyone tried these curved screens? I make family DVDs/videos and so use an image editor and video editor a lot. Presumably, selecting rectangles from an image (a frequent operation) takes some getting used to with a physically curved monitor? I installed the new PC yesterday and have temporarily borrowed the Acer P195HQ from my shed workshop's ancient PC. It populates its 19.5" with 1366 x 768 pixels (16:9) and doesn't look too bad. But it's very low, needing what seems to be the very common approach of looking slightly downward across the KB. Ergonomically very poor long term I gather. Its centre is little more than 9" above the desk, compared with about 17" for the 1920 x 1080 24" Prolite. Many of the technical points in your earlier post were above my know-how level, but can I make sure I understand one key point that's still confusing me please. Despite my video work I elected (for now at least) not to specify an independent graphics card in my i7 6700K PC. I'm relying on recommendations from a couple of friends (and the supplier of my NLE, Magix) that its inbuilt Intel HD Graphics 530 should be well up to the task. So my question is: will that have any bearing on my choice of monitor? I assume *not*, because as I understand it, every monitor has just ONE optimum resolution (presumably closely related to its physical size) and it's *that* which is the primary factor? Will the combination of Win 10 and the hardware graphics cope with just about any resolution? You can start with the processor spec page. This would be the specification of the GPU inside the CPU chip, that drives the connectors in the I/O plate area of the motherboard. http://ark.intel.com/products/88195/...20-GHz?q=6700k Processor Graphics Intel HD Graphics 530 Graphics Output eDP/DP/HDMI/DVI 4K Support Yes, at 60Hz Max Resolution (Intel WiDi) 1080p Max Resolution (HDMI 1.4) 4096x2304 @ 24Hz Max Resolution (DP) 4096x2304 @ 60Hz Max Resolution (eDP - Integrated Flat Panel) 4096x2304 @ 60Hz Max Resolution (VGA) N/A If there were to be a VGA connector on the backplate, it would be driven by a converter chip (converting one of the other standards to VGA). Not that you would want to use VGA at 4096x2304. Chances are good you can drive one big monitor OK with just the motherboard output. This will be a situation, where you test with the motherboard graphics, and then decide whether another piece of hardware needs to be installed inside the PC. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_..._Iris_Graphics HD Graphics 530 GT2 24 E.U. Skylake OpenGL 4.4 \___ Two graphics standards, OpenGL for CAD, DirectX 12 / DirectX for games, as two examples Shader model 5.1 --- When they ask what shader version you've got. OpenCL 2.0 --- For OpenCL shader programming. The shaders are used as a CPU, the 24 E.U work in parallel Your internal GPU should support QuickSync as well. That's a video decoder that can decode more than one stream in real time. It is sometimes used by video editing software. If your chip has any encoder in it, the movie editor will probably avoid it, as hardware encoders tend to be single pass, whereas quality renders use two-pass encoding (first pass for bitrate estimation, second pass for actual encode). I think you have definite starting materials there, but I cannot vouch for the "fit for purpose" part. I don't really know if one of those can push a 2K display without struggling. You'll just have to try it. http://www.anandtech.com/show/9562/i...923.1466537377 It mentions in there, it can do two-pass encoding in hardware. But with things like that, it may not cover enough of what your video software wants to do, to always be engaged. In the table on that page, the HDMI 1.4 can do 2560x1600 @ 60Hz but they neglected to mention the 60Hz part. My guess is, 60Hz is assumed when not specified. Sub-rates such as 24Hz are used for video playback. You wouldn't want to play computer games at 24Hz. I was hoping to find a breakdown of what's inside an E.U. (Execution Unit for graphics) but it's not in there. ******* The only glaring issue with the latest Intel designs, is the "bendy CPU substrate" problem. The material the CPU sits on, isn't as thick as previous processors. The metal lid is thicker instead, and that was done so that the lid could be used to improve the spreading angle on heat dissipation. But what that compromised, is the thickness of the bottom layer of material. The lid is very stiff (that's good) but just past the lid, the package is very weak. If you have a super-heavy CPU cooler, it can cause the substrate to bend. And the substrate must remain perfectly flat, for the LGA (Land Grid Array) pins to properly contact the pads. Naturally, the cooler that comes with the CPU, will be light enough. But if you search around, you can probably find a hulking third-party cooler that could cause problems. http://hexus.net/tech/news/cpu/88628...ount-pressure/ Paul
|
|
#14
June 21st 16, 11:37 PM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
In message , Terry Pinnell
writes: [] bearing on my choice of monitor? I assume *not*, because as I understand it, every monitor has just ONE optimum resolution (presumably closely related to its physical size) and it's *that* which is the primary factor? Will the combination of Win 10 and the hardware graphics cope with just about any resolution? Any post-CRT monitor JUST HAS ONE RESOLUTION; it has a certain number of real pixels, horizontally and vertically. The _electronics_ in the monitor can _accept_ signals at other resolutions, but can only display them on the monitor by one of two methods: 1. If it's a lower resolution, they _could_ only use the appropriate number of pixels, i. e. only use part of the screen. I don't think I've seen any monitor where the electronics do that, apart from my old (Windows 9x, or before) Toshiba laptop. This would display a 3 by 3 signal on a 5 by 5 monitor thus: ...... ..ABC. ..DEF. Where "." is black screen - as I say, I've never seen that. ..GHI. ...... 2. It displays the signal by blurring it across the rows/columns; every few rows/columns you might get a row where the pixels are just displaying the signal for one row/column in the signal, but any row/column in between those will be displaying a blur of the signals from two rows/columns in the signal. So the 3by3-on5by5 would be A.B.C ...... D.E.F This time, "." is a blur of the adjacent lines ...... G.H.I The blurring is most obvious when a narrow vertical or horizontal line is shown against a contrasting background. Therefore, yes, for practical purposes, a given monitor has one _optimum_ resolution - the one that matches the number of pixels it has. This "native" resolution does _tend_ to follow the physical size, but there aren't resolutions for every screen size: sometimes two or more physical sizes of monitor will have the same native resolution - they just have bigger or smaller pixels. This is most noticeable in TV sets, which (in UK anyway, and before 4K came out) were/are one of only three resolutions: SD (576) [now very rare on new sets except quite small ones], 720, and HD (1080). (Vertical resolution only.) Any 1080-resolution set will only have 1080 lines of pixels - they'll just be bigger pixels on a 50 inch set than on a 32 inch one. In computer monitors, there are still only a limited number of native resolutions, though more than 3 - not helped by the fact that the aspect ratios vary too, from 4:3 (still IMO best for general-purpose computing, but increasingly rare), to 16:9, and 16:10 (which should be referred to as 8:5 but isn't), even to 2:1. Since you've ordered/got your computer now, your main selection criterion is not to buy a monitor whose native resolution is one your graphics "card" can't generate. Unfortunately, that probably still leaves you plenty to choose between, since most modern graphics circuitry can generate a range of resolutions! -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The desire to remain private and/or anonymous used to be a core British value, but in recent times it has been treated with suspicion - an unfortunate by- product of the widespread desire for fame. - Chris Middleton, Computing 6 September 2011
|
|
#15
June 22nd 16, 08:38 AM
posted to microsoft.public.windowsxp.general
|
|||
|
|||
|
Max size monitor for 1920 X 1200?
John, Paul,
Great posts, many thanks, I do believe I've finally grasped the main issues! John: I can't relax until I've interpreted your sig... -- Terry, East Grinstead, UK ==================== "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote: In message , Terry Pinnell writes: [] bearing on my choice of monitor? I assume *not*, because as I understand it, every monitor has just ONE optimum resolution (presumably closely related to its physical size) and it's *that* which is the primary factor? Will the combination of Win 10 and the hardware graphics cope with just about any resolution? Any post-CRT monitor JUST HAS ONE RESOLUTION; it has a certain number of real pixels, horizontally and vertically. The _electronics_ in the monitor can _accept_ signals at other resolutions, but can only display them on the monitor by one of two methods: 1. If it's a lower resolution, they _could_ only use the appropriate number of pixels, i. e. only use part of the screen. I don't think I've seen any monitor where the electronics do that, apart from my old (Windows 9x, or before) Toshiba laptop. This would display a 3 by 3 signal on a 5 by 5 monitor thus: ..... .ABC. .DEF. Where "." is black screen - as I say, I've never seen that. .GHI. ..... 2. It displays the signal by blurring it across the rows/columns; every few rows/columns you might get a row where the pixels are just displaying the signal for one row/column in the signal, but any row/column in between those will be displaying a blur of the signals from two rows/columns in the signal. So the 3by3-on5by5 would be A.B.C ..... D.E.F This time, "." is a blur of the adjacent lines ..... G.H.I The blurring is most obvious when a narrow vertical or horizontal line is shown against a contrasting background. Therefore, yes, for practical purposes, a given monitor has one _optimum_ resolution - the one that matches the number of pixels it has. This "native" resolution does _tend_ to follow the physical size, but there aren't resolutions for every screen size: sometimes two or more physical sizes of monitor will have the same native resolution - they just have bigger or smaller pixels. This is most noticeable in TV sets, which (in UK anyway, and before 4K came out) were/are one of only three resolutions: SD (576) [now very rare on new sets except quite small ones], 720, and HD (1080). (Vertical resolution only.) Any 1080-resolution set will only have 1080 lines of pixels - they'll just be bigger pixels on a 50 inch set than on a 32 inch one. In computer monitors, there are still only a limited number of native resolutions, though more than 3 - not helped by the fact that the aspect ratios vary too, from 4:3 (still IMO best for general-purpose computing, but increasingly rare), to 16:9, and 16:10 (which should be referred to as 8:5 but isn't), even to 2:1. Since you've ordered/got your computer now, your main selection criterion is not to buy a monitor whose native resolution is one your graphics "card" can't generate. Unfortunately, that probably still leaves you plenty to choose between, since most modern graphics circuitry can generate a range of resolutions!
|
|
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
