| Main > Main Forum |
| No more CRT Arcade monitors? :( |
| << < (7/11) > >> |
| Blanka:
--- Quote from: DJ_Izumi on December 22, 2010, 04:23:54 pm --- --- Quote from: keefyboy on December 22, 2010, 12:31:05 pm ---At 1920x1200, no CRT can touch it. --- End quote --- *sets his 70lb Dell Trinitron P1110 CRT to 1920x1200* Sup? :) However the P1110 is 4:3 so that's not a good resolution for it to run it, but it can also do 1856x1392 @ 85hz. Which is infact a HIGHER resolution than 1920x1200. :) 1920 x 1200 = 2 304 000 pixels 1856 x 1392 = 2 583 442 pixels. So considder your 1920x1200 very much 'touched' by a CRT. :) --- End quote --- My IIyama 4:3 19 inch did 2048x1536 with no problems. Thats almost the pixels of that huge 27 inch iMac. |
| Zakk:
--- Quote from: Osirus23 on December 23, 2010, 01:44:17 am --- --- Quote from: keefyboy on December 21, 2010, 08:59:51 am ---People have (IMO) gotten stupid, and now most monitors are 16:9. OK for watching some movies, really crap for business use. But OOOOOOHHH, WIIIDESCREEN! :timebomb: --- End quote --- I rather enjoy the ability to have 2 documents open side by side in Word, and using Aero snap in Windows 7 is awesome. I stick with 4:3 CRTs for cabs but for any other use you couldn't pay me to go back to them. --- End quote --- I agree, I can stretch an excel spreadsheet over two widescreen monitors, that's awesome. Don't get me wrong, I wouldn't mind if the monitors were 25 inches wide and 25 inches high. A solid wall of monitor. However it comes back to the problem of neck and eye strain...widescreen lets you keep your eyes at a good level, while still having lots of real estate. I even put a 23" lcd into a cab, and the thing turned out absolutely killer, even for upright games like pacman (although it is awesome for metal slug!) Plus I don't have to use my leet karate skills to move the 10,000lb cabinet when I'm done. Screw CRT's. I'm hoping they get screens down to 1mm thick and 1/2 an ounce in weight. If the damn things would roll into a tube, even better :) *note I have no leet karate skillz. |
| SavannahLion:
A lot of people do that at my work. Nearly every one of them are itching to get widescreens for that reason. I think I'm the only one that specifically asks for a traditional 4:3 ratio or something close to it. I think they assigned me dual 5:4 instead. Why, you might ask? Because I'm not ---smurfing--- blind and run my LCD monitors at their native resolutions. I can pack as much data real estate in a 4:3 monitor at the higher resolution than some who puts up with that blurry ---steaming pile of meadow muffin--- at a lower non-native resolution on the wide screen. Do the math on total real estate on 25" 4:3 vs a 25" 16:9. |
| boykster:
--- Quote from: pinballjim on December 23, 2010, 01:02:58 pm --- --- Quote from: Zakk on December 23, 2010, 12:28:02 pm ---I agree, I can stretch an excel spreadsheet over two widescreen monitors, that's awesome. --- End quote --- Yeah, but you can't have two separate instances of Excel running*. Drives me bonkers. You can do it with other Office stuff. * - I'd love to be proven wrong on this. Please please please. --- End quote --- I do it all the time - what version of Excel are you using? I have 2 seperate instances of Excel 2010 running right now, and at work I do it with Excel 2007 :dunno |
| boykster:
Oh, and for the record, I hope 4:3 arcade CRTs are available for a long while. I agree with Zakk that LCDs are much more convenient on some ways, but nothing beats the glow of an arcade CRT. For computer usage I'm not a huge fan of widescreen monitors - give me a pair of matched 19-22" 4:3 LCD screens side by side and I'm happy. I MUCH prefer that to a single wide monitor, or even a pair of wide monitors. |
| Navigation |
| Message Index |
| Next page |
| Previous page |