Running Laptop at Non-standard Resolutions

I think it's commonly thought that a laptop is only good at running
the native resolution.

I have found, however, that when I don't need a lot of screen real
estate I sometimes prefer running a Latitude D520 at 1024 x 768
instead of its native resolution of 1400 x 1050. Although the text
and lines are "softer", they are by no means hard to read at all.

I only discovered this because a Vista bug kept returning my D520 to
1024 x 768 resolutoin when it came out of sleep, and I got tired of
always changing it back. It's a nice surprise to find that the
problem caused me to discover that I like the non-standard larger
resolution better for most tasks.

I would rather have the softer 1024 text most of the time and have the
option to go to 1400 if I need it, than be stuck at the 1024 without
an option for a higher resolution. That may be food for thought for
some users.

modern lcd displays do a better job at working at resolutions other that
what is native to the particular display, however resolution does not
dictate the size of objects that are displayed. it is perhaps the most
misunderstood thing that regardless of resolution one can change the
appearance of objects in windows by controlling either the dpi setting or
the font size. both are found under display properties.

"Journey" <> wrote in message
news:...
>I think it's commonly thought that a laptop is only good at running
> the native resolution.
>
> I have found, however, that when I don't need a lot of screen real
> estate I sometimes prefer running a Latitude D520 at 1024 x 768
> instead of its native resolution of 1400 x 1050. Although the text
> and lines are "softer", they are by no means hard to read at all.
>
> I only discovered this because a Vista bug kept returning my D520 to
> 1024 x 768 resolutoin when it came out of sleep, and I got tired of
> always changing it back. It's a nice surprise to find that the
> problem caused me to discover that I like the non-standard larger
> resolution better for most tasks.
>
> I would rather have the softer 1024 text most of the time and have the
> option to go to 1400 if I need it, than be stuck at the 1024 without
> an option for a higher resolution. That may be food for thought for
> some users.

Thanks Christopher -- that may be a better solution, I will try that.

On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 13:25:15 -0500, "Christopher Muto"
<> wrote:

>modern lcd displays do a better job at working at resolutions other that
>what is native to the particular display, however resolution does not
>dictate the size of objects that are displayed. it is perhaps the most
>misunderstood thing that regardless of resolution one can change the
>appearance of objects in windows by controlling either the dpi setting or
>the font size. both are found under display properties.
>
>"Journey" <> wrote in message
>news:.. .
>>I think it's commonly thought that a laptop is only good at running
>> the native resolution.
>>
>> I have found, however, that when I don't need a lot of screen real
>> estate I sometimes prefer running a Latitude D520 at 1024 x 768
>> instead of its native resolution of 1400 x 1050. Although the text
>> and lines are "softer", they are by no means hard to read at all.
>>
>> I only discovered this because a Vista bug kept returning my D520 to
>> 1024 x 768 resolutoin when it came out of sleep, and I got tired of
>> always changing it back. It's a nice surprise to find that the
>> problem caused me to discover that I like the non-standard larger
>> resolution better for most tasks.
>>
>> I would rather have the softer 1024 text most of the time and have the
>> option to go to 1400 if I need it, than be stuck at the 1024 without
>> an option for a higher resolution. That may be food for thought for
>> some users.
>