LCD monitors are great. No question. They’re thin, can be moved around easily, don’t use much electricity, don’t produce static when turned on or off, have a crisp picture that stays crisp, and so on.

However there is one failing of LCD monitors and a big one at that. It’s a lack of vertical resolution.

I’ll explain.

Let’s say you want a monitor that has a 2048-pixel-wide resolution. Yes, this is an insane amount of pixels. How big, as in physically big, do you have to go with an LCD to get this?

The answer is 21 inches.

However, at that size you only get 1152 pixels on the vertical within a reasonable price range – and those are 23-inchers. The monitor is really wide, but seriously short. Bear in mind that is only 72 pixels taller than a 1680×1050 resolution. Like I said, short.

Now let’s say you want something with some true vertical resolution, as in 2048×1536. That’s proper.

That will cost you $4,400 to get it with LCD. You literally pay an extra four thousand dollars for those extra 384 vertical pixels.

Now let’s compare this to the good ol’ CRT – which is really hard to come by these days.

You can get a 21-inch monitor that will support a true 2048×1536 resolution. I found one on eBay for just $600. It’s used because I could not locate a new one.

(Note: If you know of any vendor that does sell these new, please feel free to post a comment with a link as I’m sure there would be some interested parties.)

Who needs crazy resolutions like this?

Programmers love having this kind of screen real estate. You can fit so much stuff on-screen that there is no need for a secondary monitor.

If you’re wondering, "How could anyone read anything at that resolution?" Trust me, programmers can and do routinely.

You simply cannot get the vertical resolution of those old huge 21 and 22-inch CRTs on modern LCDs. Not without paying several thousand dollars for it, anyway.

To answer the question: Did we lose resolution with LCD? Unquestionably, yes.

Hopefully someday the LCD monitor manufacturers will wise up and give us some decent vertical resolution at an agreeable price.

And no, buying an LCD that turns sideways is not the answer because then you lose a ton of horizontal real estate. What the monitor manufacturers need to do is start making taller monitors and not wider. We’ve got enough wide to go around already and don’t need any more. We need height.

For those that would say, "Well, just get a 2560×1600 LCD! Problem solved!" No, problem not solved. The monitor is physically too large. You’re going to have a 26 or 30-inch behemoth on the desk. That’s not practical at all. Maybe fun and cool, but not practical.

Wide is great, but don’t you wish sometimes you had an extra 300 or so pixels at the bottom? I know I do.

Real-world monitor resolution considerations for those of us on a budget

The two best resolutions that give you the most usable vertical space within a reasonable price are:

• 1680×1050
• 1280×1024

Why is vertical resolution so important? Because you scroll less.

My advice: Don’t buy anything under 1000 pixels on the vertical. Not unless you like scrolling a lot.

The Microsoft Windows operating environment introduced something called "font smoothing" right around the time Internet Explorer 4.0 was released in 1997. Even way back then (this is before the release of Windows 98) Microsoft understood that type on screen must be as legible as possible.

ClearType, another Microsoft way of making fonts look better, was announced in 1998 but didn’t make an appearance until January 2000 as a feature of the Microsoft Reader software for those that remember that title.

When Windows XP was introduced in 2001, ClearType was built-in.

All this font stuff is called subpixel rendering technology. In layman’s terms is just means the fonts you see on screen are rendered differently.

In Windows XP (and in Vista assumedly) you can enable or disable ClearType at whim. This is done via Control Panel / Display / Appearance / Effects button. You see this:

If you check "Use the following method…" and select "Standard" from the drop-down menu, fonts under the 12pt size will not show as ClearType. If you select "ClearType", all fonts are rendered in ClearType. If you uncheck the box, no fonts will be shown in ClearType at all.

I do recommend anyone running Windows XP to download and use the ClearType Tuner PowerToy. This will add an icon in your Control Panel called "ClearType Tuning". When you click it you see this:

Using the Wizard helps out a great deal in selecting how much ClearType rendering you want. Very handy to have.

Which is more readable, ClearType or Standard?

This obviously depends on a few factors:

LCD or CRT?

Subpixel rendering has heavy concentration to make fonts look good on an LCD monitor (note the screen shot above: "..improves the readability of text on existing LCDs"). More often than not if you’re using a CRT, turning ClearType off will look better.

Why is this? Because CRT monitors aren’t as crisp as LCDs are. If you have ClearType enabled on a CRT it may "fuzz out" the fonts too much causing them to look "smudgy".

Font size

Obviously larger fonts look better than smaller ones when talking about subpixel rendering. Think of it this way: With digital photography, larger resolution is always better. With smaller resolutions you lose focus. The same can be said for fonts.

LCD screen striping

If the smaller fonts on your screen have the tendency to have oddly-colored edges, sometimes something as simple as changing the LCD screen striping will fix this. The ClearType Tuning applet has an "Advanced" section where you can change it from red/green/blue to blue/green/red:

Note the left side of the screen shot above.

If when you change this it makes the fonts look bad, just change it back. It will not "mess up" your monitor whatsoever because it has nothing to do with screen resolution; just the font rendering method.

Standard resolution fonts do not have any issue whatsoever with display no matter what screen striping method you use.

Is the font "interrupted" by a background image?

This is particularly dealing with what wallpaper you use. Certain wallpaper will make the text under your icons difficult to read while others will not.

General rule of thumb: Darker-image wallpaper always make the icon text look better. And of course, using no wallpaper is the best for legibility – especially if the background color is black.

What’s your refresh rate?

The standard refresh rate for almost all LCD monitors is 60Hz. I made mention in the past that some offer the option of 59Hz. This may offer slightly better readability.

With CRT monitors, the default refresh rate is also 60Hz – but you may find better luck with 70, 72, 75 or 85 depending on the choices you have.

If no matter what you do for hertz on a CRT the fonts still look crappy, disable ClearType.

Screen hardware settings

This actually has nothing to do with the font itself but rather the physical monitor settings.

The ones to pay attention to are:

• Brightness
• Contrast
• Sharpness
• Color

Brightness and Contrast:

When your monitor is showing nothing but black, it should be as black as possible and not gray-ish. If the gray exists this will "fuzz" fonts a bit.

Sharpness:

Too much sharpness will cause odd colors to appear in font rendering.

Color:

You have "cool" and "warm" settings here. Generally speaking "cool" (blue-ish) is better read easier. HOWEVER – going to blue can be trying on the eyes by making the whites too stark. Adjust only in slight increments if you have the option.