SunUp wrote Fri, 24 Feb 2006 09:49:53 +1100: > My work (government) PC has a 17" mon, 800x600 (because I LIKE this > res, and I wish I had a dollar for every site I have to horizontal > scroll on). My department has no budget for "extras" like fancy new > monitors. > My home PC "only" has a 15" mon, 800x600. I cope. > I will have to be dragged kicking and screaming to 1024x768
This is an interesting position. I don't think I've ever before run across anyone who strongly prefers the jaggies and spindly text that go with low resolution. Depending on display size, I find anything below about 1400x1050 marginal for normal use, and anything below about 1280x960 unacceptable for normal use. What is it about low quality that keeps you attracted? http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=resolution res·o·lu·tion (rz-lshn) n. 3. The fineness of detail that can be distinguished in an image, as on a video display terminal. 7: (computer science) the number of pixels per square inch on a computer-generated display; the greater the resolution, the better the picture -- "Love your neighbor as yourself." Mark 12:31 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://mrmazda.no-ip.com/auth/auth ****************************************************** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help ******************************************************
