In message <ql8e53$v0b$***@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<***@greeleynet.com> writes:
[]
Post by Ken SpringerFor the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
Crikey, I hadn't come across 5:4 since the early days of TV ...
Post by Ken Springeractually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums.
Post by Ken Springerone other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.
The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.
Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
than ratios.
Post by Ken SpringerWhen I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
looking at that spec.
They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.)
[]
Post by Ken SpringerAnd the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put
any kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The
monitor displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the
fields was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine
where the input field was! LOL
One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me
to about a 40-450 >practical solution, though. <VBG>
Ah, the infamous viewing angle problem!
[]
Post by Ken Springer|
\
|
|
/
|
More or less. LOL
Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.
Post by Ken SpringerI experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
can't get to them!
The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.
Post by Ken SpringerAll of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
correcting the screen display so I can see it.
I don't think MS gives a damn.
Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
_some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
"standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
software.
[]
Post by Ken SpringerBut the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not
found an example of 320 X 240.
No, but - assuming you can set that as a resolution these days! (I
thought 640×480 was the minimum for, maybe, Windows '9x, and that went
up to 800×600 for, possibly, XP) - there would be no _blurring_ if
viewed on a monitor of native resolution 640×480, or 1280×960; each
320×240 pixel would actually occupy a whole number of native pixels. (In
these hypothetical examples, 2×2 or 4×4.)
Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.
What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?
Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as
tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.
I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
when you move the slider in the resolution display.
You might be right about the presentation (greyed out rows). I'll admit
I haven't really looked at how the options are presented for an edition
or two of Windows. I've just looked, and I see what you mean about a
slider and greyed options on Windows 7.
Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Post by Ken SpringerIf magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
[]
Post by Ken SpringerNo distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.
Mine too. When shortscreen displays first started to be the norm,
though, I was amazed how many people accepted squashed displays - or,
even, seemed not to notice that they _were_ squashed. It has improved of
late as shortscreen has become the norm for both monitor and OS.
[]
Post by Ken SpringerThis Pro-Art rotates 900
Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)Post by Ken SpringerI think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.
If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)
Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 900
You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in. (Even for
movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.
[]
Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Post by Ken SpringerBoth have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
Interesting.
I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".
See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.
Post by Ken SpringerI immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had
Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
(especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.
Post by Ken Springera 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
since.
If we're talking CRT, B&W was always intrinsically higher resolution
than colour.
Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Post by Ken SpringerI wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.
32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.
32" CRTs were big, heavy beasts.
Post by Ken SpringerPost by J. P. Gilliver (John)Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.
https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1432&bih=919&ei=87Z
3XeyeJYHZ-gT2joGABw&q=computer+hutch+desk&oq=computer+hutch&gs_l=img.1.2
.0l4j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l4.587.2507..5237...0.0..0.89.988.14......0....1..gw
s-wiz-img.3jCItgMUz-E
Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm
Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.
Post by Ken Springersure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.
And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
apartment, or selling your house? <G>
Good question! I suppose you could use a floor stand, but that'd have to
be pretty heavy - or some sort of arm thing attached to the desk.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)***@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've ever
enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears. - Beryl Hales, Radio Times
24-30 March 2012