🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Ttr$iBAPCmlxEw1E@rmplc.co.uk>
           JWinney@rmplc.co.uk "John Winney" writes:

> In article <319603d2.105737262@news.demon.co.uk>, Nigel Barker
> <nigel@openvms.demon.co.uk> writes
> >My thoughts exactly. It beats me why people spend lavish amounts on
> >graphics cards, disks, memory, soundcards etc etc & then sit in front
> >of a poxy 15" monitor or even worse a 14". I must confess an interest
> >here as I have a 21" monitor & nowadays find even a 17" monitor
> >limiting. Given the choice between a 486 with a >17" monitor & a
> >Pentium with a 15" I'd go for the 486 every time.
> >
> >--
> >Nigel Barker
> >nigel@openvms.demon.co.uk
> 
> But what are you using all those inchs for? Size matters to some
> people, I like 17 myself, but am happy with 15. I think you need
> to work out what the PC is for before recommending a screen...

I've seen monitors labelled as 14" and 15" side by side, and I had to 
measure the image to see any difference in _image_ size (and the guy 
selling them gave me a rather sour look too...).

Yes, it depends on what you want to do, but I wouldn't use anything more 
than 800x600 on a 14"/15" monitor -- I've tried and, while it lets you 
look at more of a large graphics image, things are too small to work on 
(even with the large fonts for the Windows menues).

I've been looking on what I've spent on my machine over the last couple 
of months, and I could have put the money into a 17" monitor.  Maybe 
next year...

-- 
David G. Bell -- Farmer, SF Fan, Filker, Furry, and Punslinger..