<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 17:10, Stephen Worthington <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz">stephen_agent@jsw.gen.nz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
I agree about wanting vertical space, but I got a 1920x1200 monitor so<br>
that it had the same vertical space as my old 19" CRT, and that works<br>
very well. I tend to use the extra horizontal screen space for all<br>
sorts of useful but not totally necessary things.<br></blockquote><div><br>I guess you've got a 24" widescreen? It'll be interesting to see if those panels survive in the market as I think 16:10 is declining in popularity. But if I upgrade, one of those would probably be my choice.<br>
<br>Currently my desktop has two 19" 4:3 monitors, one is landscape, one is portrait. The portrait one is what I use for browsing and most documents. Landscape one gets used for games and spreadsheets and VMs mostly. It's nice to be able to just maximize a window on the portrait monitor alone. OTOH, I can't use subpixel rendering (i.e. ClearType) because Windows is too stupid to understand how to do it properly in portrait orientation.<br>
<br>To match the portrait monitor's vertical space I'd need a 15" high screen with 1280 lines. A 30" 1920x1080 would be pretty close to matching my two monitors together (about the same space but with 20% less pixels). A 30" 2560x1600 would be great. But any 30" is going to cost at least $1500. Not gonna happen.<br>
<br></div></div>Cheers,<br>Steve<br>