* Gary Hennigan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) spake thusly: ... Also, I > run X almost exclusively so I can't speak to the FB issue.
It works the same way: (in a nutshell) things look worse at lower resolutions. > Flat panels, in general, have a certain number of pixels and their > display is optimal for that number of pixels. If you're running the > thing digitally and you want to run at a resolution less than the > monitors optimal setting you'll just get a portion of the screen. ... > For analog you can run at any resolution up to and including the > optimal setting for the monitor, and it'll fill the screen, but you're > taking a double whammy. First running analog your image isn't nearly > as sharp as running digital. Hmm, I should try to get work to buy me a video card with digital out... ObFuzziness: pixel on a CRT screen is a round dot where the beams hit. On a TFT, the pixel is a rectangle like this: +-----------+ | | red | | |--------+ | | green | | |--------+ | | blue | +-----------+ What you get with this is ragged edges, esp. noticeable in fonts. How bad it is also depends on colour: black pixel is the "whole thing", red pixel is a thin rectangle occupying approx. 1/3rd of "whole thing". So, black font on white background will look better than pure red font on black background. On both types of screens higher resolution -> sharper image, of course. Dima -- "Mirrors and copulation are abominable because they increase the number of entities." -- corollary to Occam's Razor