Re: OT: Monitor sizes

[Dov Isaacs <isaacs@xxxxxxxxx>]

At 2/10/2004 04:36 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>Hi Folks
>
>Our IT dept is keen to replace our 17" CRT monitors with 15" LCD monitors.  The
>standard policy for the tech authors here has been a single 17" CRT.  This policy
>has been in place for many years.  However, IT now have a standard policy of buying
>15" LCDs for everybody.  Basically, they don't want to buy CRTs anymore, and want to
>standardise on one monitor type, so everyone gets the 15" LCD.  IT say a 15" LCD has
>the same image size as a 17" CRT, but my 17" CRT has a 16" diagonal image size, so
>it gives me a larger image than a 15" LCD would.
>
>So, I'd like to know what other tech authors are using.  If most people are using
>monitors larger than 15", then I will have some hard evidence to show to IT when I
>request a monitor larger than 15".
>
>Please reply directly to me if you can as I am on the digest.
>
>Thanks
>
>Dave


Dave,

I would be very careful here. Most 15" LCD monitors have a native
resolution of 1024 x 768 (unless you have a very high end notebook
computer in which case 15" displays are 1280 x 1024 or 1600 x 1200).
Most likely, although not necessarily, your existing 17" CRT monitors
are running at 1280 x 1024 pixels. If this is indeed the case, you
are not only losing "real estate" (i.e., 16"+ diagonal actual to 15"
diagonal), but you are losing significant resolution as well.

Maybe I'm just too much of a "softie" about these types of issues,
but when it comes to ergonomics and the health and welfare of members
of my staff (when I used to have one), but when you have folks staring 
at (sometimes) tiny type on a screen for at least eight hours (or more)
a day, you don't skimp on items such as a CRT or display. For CRTs, 
think big, think high resolution but set for larger text size if 
necessary, and think high refresh rate. For LCDs, the same is true 
although LCD units don't have the refresh rate problem. LCDs do have 
another problem, though. If you don't "feed" the LCD display with a 
digital signal, i.e. DVI as opposed to analog VGA, you can end up with
a mushy, herky-jerky display.

Thus, Dov's handy-dandy recommendations for desktop LCD monitors to 
keep your authors (and other intensive computer users) happy and keep
their eyes from bugging out:

(1) No less than 17" LCD monitor at 1280x1024 native resolution.
Better yet, 20" or more at 1600x1200 native resolution. This
week, Dell has had a sale on such an 20" LCD monitor for $899.
I bought two for home.

(2) A high quality video card that can "feed" digital signals
to such LCD monitors. You can get such a card from ATI for about
$80 US (you don't need the super-duper gaming cards costing
hundreds of dollars to give damned great performance for typical
graphics operations to a single 1600x1200 pixel digital monitor
with 24/32 bit color).

If management balks about doing the "right thing," whisper the 
magic words "disability," "workers compensation," and "lawsuits"
(or whatever the equivalent of these terms is down there in New Zealand!).
$1000 or less for a proper sized LCD and video card setup that
will last at least five years or more is much less expensive than
the typical disability pay-out ...

        - Dov

PS: Don't those IT "experts" really get to you?


** To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx **
** with "unsubscribe framers" (no quotes) in the body.   **