[geeks] LCD display options

[Phil Stracchino]

Joshua Boyd wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 09:45:20AM -0800, Phil Stracchino wrote:
>>The downside is, unlike a CRT where addressable resolution is variable, 
>>an LCD has a fixed physical resolution, which means that LCD displays 
>>tend to look bad unless being driven exactly *at* their native physical 
>>resolution -- a 1280x1024 LCD being driven at 1024x768, for example, 
>>will look much less sharp than a 1024x768 LCD the same size also driven 
>>at 1024x768.
>  
> I am aware of that.  However, for the most part it doesn't bother me.
> Why would I want to drive the screen at less than optimal?
> 
> The only major time when I would want to do that would be if I were to
> hook a video source to the display.  And that is why I haven't been
> leaping to replace my 17" CRT that I use for displaying DVDs and video
> game consoles. 

Very true.  This is why I intend to replace babylon5's Sun 90D10 with an 
LCD when it dies, since I basically use it 90% for text and only ever at 
1920x1200 anyway.  If I can get the same resolution with a quarter the 
weight and power dissipation, and no geometry drift or RGB alignment 
issues, great!
On the other hand, vorlon's monitor is likely to remain a CRT at least 
until all my currently-owned 20" CRTs die, including the 
brand-new-in-box Sun GDM-5410 I just acquired, because vorlon is my 
gamebox, and I want it to both respond instantly and be pin-sharp at a 
wide range of resolutions.


-- 
  Phil Stracchino
  Renaissance Man, Unix generalist, Perl hacker
  phil.stracchino at speakeasy.net
  phil.stracchino at ceva-dsp.com
  Mobile: 408-592-8081