I'm 75 years old. I just purchased the ultra sharp 2707 27" monitor.
Its a beautiful monitor but very expensive. I run this monitor at 1024
x 768 no problem and I can see everything clearly. This monitor is
widescreen and highest resolution is 1920 x 1200. I also own the 20"
ultra sharp square monitor FP. It is 1600 x 1200 and I usually run that
in 800 x 600 or 1024 x 768. I imagine if the 22" or 24" are ultra sharp
FP monitor they should be OK in the lower resolution. Actually with the
ultra sharp I can see no difference it is just the the highest or higher
resolutions are just too darn small to read anything. My monitors fill
the screen. I just hate email that is in the center smaller and two
large white sides showing nothing. I'm old fill my screen. -
Joan
Boris wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I'd like to get my in-laws a new desktop and monitor. Their use is very
> basic...email and browsing, and online purchasing.
>
> Monitor choices is my main concern. They currently use a 17" CRT, set
> at 1024 x 768, and I think the font size is set at normal DPI. I know
> this can be set larger, but they then lose real estate, and have to
> start scrolling. With this current configuration, they sometimes put
> their face as close as 12" to the screen.
>
> I'd really like to get them a large-ish (22"?) LCD, but the larger the
> LCD, the smaller the native resolution. I don't want any solutions that
> just enlarge a portion of the screen at a time, like the enlarge button
> on a mouse. Is a properly sized (screen size, resolution setting, and
> font size) CRT still the best choice for their needs?
>
> Thanks.