JeffW
TUG Member
My sister and BIL currently have a (decent) 17" tube monitor, running @ 800x600 resolution, on a Windows XP system. They are both complaining (due to aging) about text being too small. I've tried to bump up the font size in Internet Explorer, but that seems to cause issues with some sites that don't seem to handle the font size being anything other than 'normal'. For a similar reason, I don't see dropping the resolution to a lower value (640 x 480) as being an issue-free option. I don't think block magnification (provided by I think the Magnifier (?) accessibility tool) is a viable option either. I've told her that a larger monitor, most likely an LCD one, is the answer (they are moving soon, and a 19"+ tube monitor would be awkward for them to handle).
In doing some brief looking online, most new monitors seem to be widescreen (16x9), vs. the 4x3 ratio they have now. Their computer (4yr old eMachine) does have at least one 16x9 resolution, but I think it might have been something like 1280 x 720 - basically, in order to get matching screen proportions, they're have to increase the resolution. Not good.
I'm guessing a 16x9 monitor will work with 4x3 output, but probably like tv SD vs HD, either: a) stretches the screen, or b) has black bars along the sides. Am I missing anything?
Assuming I'm not, what are my options? Some ideas:
1. Find a new monitor. Doable (newegg.com sells some), but apparently not very common, and selection likely to diminish over time.
2. find maybe a refurbished 4x3 monitor online (Tiger Direct, etc), or possibly used from an individual.
3. add a video card that can does supports a low 16x9 resolution (maybe 900 x 500). This adds extra cost to the monitor acquisition cost. In additional, I added an ATI PCI-E dual port card (to drive my tube monitor and LCD HD tv). Although 3d graphics, and probably media player output performance is better, 2D (everyday!) performance was worse than my eMachine system w/ onboard video. An even less expensive board for her system could have even worse performance, not to mention extra support issues.
I absolutely do not see them getting into anything (movie / tv show downloads, web viewing) where they'd really want 16x9 display capability. I really think the only reason they'd need a new, larger monitor is for larger text.
Any suggestions or recommendations? Other than sacrificing image quality for size, any reason not to go as big as their budget permits? Thanks.
Jeff
In doing some brief looking online, most new monitors seem to be widescreen (16x9), vs. the 4x3 ratio they have now. Their computer (4yr old eMachine) does have at least one 16x9 resolution, but I think it might have been something like 1280 x 720 - basically, in order to get matching screen proportions, they're have to increase the resolution. Not good.
I'm guessing a 16x9 monitor will work with 4x3 output, but probably like tv SD vs HD, either: a) stretches the screen, or b) has black bars along the sides. Am I missing anything?
Assuming I'm not, what are my options? Some ideas:
1. Find a new monitor. Doable (newegg.com sells some), but apparently not very common, and selection likely to diminish over time.
2. find maybe a refurbished 4x3 monitor online (Tiger Direct, etc), or possibly used from an individual.
3. add a video card that can does supports a low 16x9 resolution (maybe 900 x 500). This adds extra cost to the monitor acquisition cost. In additional, I added an ATI PCI-E dual port card (to drive my tube monitor and LCD HD tv). Although 3d graphics, and probably media player output performance is better, 2D (everyday!) performance was worse than my eMachine system w/ onboard video. An even less expensive board for her system could have even worse performance, not to mention extra support issues.
I absolutely do not see them getting into anything (movie / tv show downloads, web viewing) where they'd really want 16x9 display capability. I really think the only reason they'd need a new, larger monitor is for larger text.
Any suggestions or recommendations? Other than sacrificing image quality for size, any reason not to go as big as their budget permits? Thanks.
Jeff