| » Forum Index » General comments » Topic: Is bigger necessarily better? |
|
Posted on 27/07/04 11:57:45 AM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Is bigger necessarily better?
No, no, no, this is about screen resolution! I have always thought that the higher the resolution, the better, especially with PS/Dreamweaver type applications where the interface is so prominent and space consuming. I run my screen at 1280x1024 but I came to wonder if it's actually necessary, as it has detramental effects on the fluidity of graphic work. A quick straw poll: Is screen area and general tidiness more important than performance? _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 27/07/04 12:12:46 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 6846 Reply  |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
The bigger the better, as far as I'm concerned. I use an Apple 20" Cinema Display, which is one of those wide-screen jobbies that has a resolution of 1680x1050. Having that extra couple of inches on the side means I have more room to stick my palettes in, and when I'm working on landscape images I can see the whole image nice and big. Several people I know use two monitors, but I could never get the hang of that - the second one always seemed such a long mouse distance away. |
Posted on 27/07/04 12:25:05 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
A wide-screen must be very luxurious, I currently have a 17" CRT, which is fine but if I took it up any further resolution wise, I'd have to have an electron microscope on standby to read text. Hopefully, when I finally upgrade the processor on the PC, it will be a little more responsive, currently, when using large brushes, it lags a little. _________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 27/07/04 1:41:16 PM |
|
Steve Caplin
Administrator Posts: 6846 Reply |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
I used a 19" CRT for years, and thought it was fine. When I bought my 20" LCD and placed the two side by side, there was no comparison: the LCD image is sharp, crystal clear, with absolutely no distortion and no blue cast. I could never go back to the old CRT. Don't want to make you feel bad, you understand! But if you're getting a processor upgrade, take a look at the LCD screens while you're at it. On second thoughts, chuck the lot away and just buy yourself a shiny new iMac.  |
Posted on 27/07/04 3:09:25 PM |
|
trinityofone
Guest Reply |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
I'd look into LCDs but with my budget, it'd be a push to get a lower range model, I use one at work and played with PS on it, it was awful, the contrast was virtually unmanagable. I'll press on with the CRT for the moment. See above for reasons why I don't get a Mac  Saying that, a friend of mine rescued a G3 from a skip at MTV, which he said I could play with but I haven't got the space or a copy of PS for the Mac._________________ It must be Thursday, I never could get the hang of Thursdays |
Posted on 27/07/04 7:34:53 PM |
|
ryan
Guest Reply |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
I use a dual monitor setup with two 17in CRT`s and a matrox dual head graphics card. I find that two monitors is much better than especially when it comes to photoshop. I use the left monitor for my document space and arrange all the palletes on the right. I find ths setup is great. Ryan |
Posted on 27/07/04 7:51:34 PM |
|
russ davey
Guest Reply |
Re: Is bigger necessarily better?
LCD is sharp and excellent when you buy the right model, unfortunately the ones they sell at PC world for £200-300 are the real budget ones, contrast and blur are awful. I think you get what you pay for with LCD monitors, and Id never consider buying a really cheap one like that. |