Best viewing resolution for 17 inch monitor?

[tedthebear]

I'm thinking of upgrading to a 17 inch monitor from my current 15 inch monitor. The Samsung SyncMaster 755 DF supports 1,024 by 768 at 85hz refresh rate. Is this viewing resolution the usual setting for a 17 inch?
What would be the usual resolution setting for a 19 inch?
I wonder if I should shell out for the 19 inch???
I'm sort of poor right now...

[Captn]

tedthebear,

If your an avid gamer like myself i would get the 19" flat screen(not flat panel). Less glare and a very nice picture, Captn

[RJ]

There is no much price difference between 17 and 19" CRTs, so if you want to upgrade I'd say 19". Anyway, stay with Samsung, they make the best CRTs on the market.

BTW, what's the difference between flat screen and flat panel ?

Do you call the TFTs "flat panel" or "flatscreen" ? Is "flat screen" and "flatscreen" the same ?
It's because here in germany the TFT is the "flatscreen", and when I read flatscreen here I first thought of TFTs, but then I got the impression that flat picture tubes (aperture grill) are meant.
I just wanted to be sure.

RJ

[Confused]

RJ I don't have a answer for you. It seems the terms are being used interchangeably, much like the area of US that I live in coke is used by some to refer to any soft drink and in other area's they use pop. I believe that TFT refers to flat panel and flat screen's are CRT's.
Chas

[mike breck]

What would be the usual resolution setting for a 19 inch?

Well for games - the highest resolution the game will support without affecting performance.

For everyday work - the highest resolution that you can read without having to use a magnifying glass or a telescope. Squinting will not improve improve your looks.

Speaking for myself, having long lost the "eyes of an eagle" and and the "speed of a panther", I keep my Samsung at 800x600 for games and work. But then, I'm too lazy to change the desktop resolution to 1024 x 768 when I play games.

HTH

[pgriffin]

My personal opinion is 75Hz for any monitor running 1024 17" or 19". It's fine on the eyes and as yet, never degraded performance. I'm a firm beliver in not pushing something for the sake of it.

Forgot your original question, got stuck on that 85Hz refresh. I'd go with 800 on the 17" and 1024 on the 19". I have both and that's the optimum for surfing and scalability (is that a word?) when doing photo editing for presentations or web work.

Just my opinion though. Good luck.

[Demosthenes]

I have always used flat panel as the LCDs, TFTs, and plasma displays. I call the Trinitrons flat screens.

I do not know exactly how the trinitrons work. It is amazing technology. The chip would have to take the dimensions and calculate how to slow down the electrons near the center to allow the edges to "catch up." Else, when you maximized a window, you would see the center first and then the edges. Personally, I think this would be a neat effect, but it would drive others nuts.

Respectfully,

Demosthenes

[archie]

SyncMaster 755DF is a 17" CRT with a flat screen. One thing that I notice about it, and I'm not sure whether this applies to all flat screens, is that it almost looks like icons have a reflection 1/2" behind the surface when using a black desktop background ... not a reason to not get a flat screen monitor but it does seem unusual at first ... an oddity much like the horizontal line across a Sony monitor except that it is easier to get used to it and not annoying in the least. As for being flat, that it is ... it even seems concave. Samsung also make a lower priced 'non-flat slightly less DPI' 17" model that is also quite good [model 750S?].
If 800x600 was the resolution used with the 15", 1024x728 is proportional when using a 17". At 800x 600, a 17 incher would be proportional to a 15 incher at 640x480. This does not not necessarily mean that if a 15" was used at 640x480 that 800x600 will be used with a 17". A 17" is a big step from a 15".