New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

9300 WUXGA at 1680x1050

post #1 of 9
3/19/05 at 1:16pm
Thread Starter 
Has anyone with a 9300 tried running at this lower resolution with typical office applications like Word/Excel/IE (not games)? Any opinions on how readable text is? Can someone take some screen pics at the high & lower resolution and post? Thanks.
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 9
3/19/05 at 3:40pm
Quote:
Has anyone with a 9300 tried running at this lower resolution with typical office applications like Word/Excel/IE (not games)? Any opinions on how readable text is?
i am using 1680x1050 right now and the text is great(even in ms word, excel applications). I would still say that the best display of text is definitly at 1920x1200 resolution though.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 9
3/19/05 at 11:27pm
im surprised how many people at my work use their 1600x1200 21inch monitors at a lower resolution due to their eyesight. i think it looks AWFUL and i just cant tolerate it.

its a very personal thing. what youve gotta do it go to best buy or something and set the resolution lower and see how it works for YOU. for me, absolutely definitely NOT a good idea to not use 1920x1200 but others can tolerate it

(yes i know best buy locks their machines. just use ctrl+m to minimize their application then you can play. just set it back the way you found it )
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 9
3/19/05 at 11:45pm
Just tried the 1660x1050 rez. More readable, but a bit of distortion and blacker text. Suppose that's why dell set the dpi at 120 on first boot up. One thing it doesn't do is make the sparkle any better.
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 9
3/20/05 at 12:17am
Well, its all in the eyes of the beholder. I personally think that gaming at lower resolution and letting it scale looks just fine. Typeing documents and such might be more bothersom.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 9
3/20/05 at 3:29am
I run native. My eyesight is mediocre. I dont like how it looks distorted. Never tried it with 1920x1200 > 1680x1050. I have no problems with it on games though. The dont usually suffer from the resolution changes.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 9
3/20/05 at 3:36am
1440x900 looks sharper than 1680x1050. 1920x1200 looks the best.
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 9
3/20/05 at 4:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by simeyla
im surprised how many people at my work use their 1600x1200 21inch monitors at a lower resolution due to their eyesight. i think it looks AWFUL and i just cant tolerate it.

its a very personal thing. what youve gotta do it go to best buy or something and set the resolution lower and see how it works for YOU. for me, absolutely definitely NOT a good idea to not use 1920x1200 but others can tolerate it

(yes i know best buy locks their machines. just use ctrl+m to minimize their application then you can play. just set it back the way you found it )
How it looks really depends on the algorithm they use to do the scaling ... I've not seen 1920x1200 screens but I've seen 1600x1200 screens run at, say, 1024x768 (ie. not an integer divisor) and have it look good, I've seen 1280x1024 screens at say 800x600 and screw it up badly but I've also seen some that do it reasonably well ...
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 9
3/20/05 at 7:07am
shouldnt this fancy graphics card be able to anti-alias the text reasonably ok?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home