Why do people complain when a bigger monitor doesnt have higher res?

[garbagemule]

To me, text is most comfortable at the following customary resolutions per given size:

...

Fixed this for you

I, too, belong with the higher dot pitch crowd. My 19", 1280x1024, 0.294 mm dot pitch monitor has just about the most comfortable pixel size for me. My eyes are about 2 feet away from the monitor, and I would actually prefer to be able to push the monitor further away for more physical desktop space, although I think the pixels would get a bit too small for me at 3 feet away. The pixels on my 13.3" MacBook at 1280x800 are a bit too small for me, and I often tend to lean forward to be able to read better. Furthermore, it's a crappy, crappy TN-panel with the poorest viewing angles I've ever experienced, so I have to constantly move my head up and down for a proper contrast. Woe is me...

I figure for a 1920x1200 resolution monitor, I'd probably prefer one that's 25.5 inches or more. Too bad the selection of such monitors is ridiculously limited :/

 

[chrcoluk]

I want a 27" 1680x1050

 

[Dan_D]

I want a 27" 1680x1050

Gross. That almost made me throw up.

 

[kllrnohj]

I want a 27" 1680x1050

No, what you want is an OS that actually respects and adjusts for a monitors DPI. That is something that is simply broken in Windows. KDE, for example, scales *everything* to adjust for higher DPIs, which causes super high DPI monitors (like a 15.4" 1920x1200 monitor) to be incredibly sharp and clear while keeping everything super readable even from a bit of a distance. I actually found that it adjusted TOO well for DPI changes, so I ended up forcing a lower DPI to prevent it from scaling as much.

 

[Solstice]

26" & 1920x1200 is just perfect to my eyes at normal viewing distance for reading texts, no text scaling needed.

 

[firas]

Lower pixels per inch (ppi) = larger text:

27" 1920x1200 = 83.9 ppi
19" 1280x1024 = 86.3 ppi
25.5" 1920x1200 = 87.1 ppi
17" 1280x800 = 88.8 ppi
19" 1440x900 = 89.4 ppi
22" 1680x1050 = 90.1 ppi
20" 1600x900 = 91.8 ppi
24" 1920x1080 = 91.8 ppi
24" 1920x1200 = 94.3 ppi
20.1" 1680x1050 = 98.4 ppi
30" 2560x1600 = 101.0 ppi
27" 2560x1440 = 108.8 ppi

Pixel Size Calculator

To the OP: you may want to seriously consider the Dell 2709W. Its text is even larger than your old 19" 1280x1024.

THANKS for the great input. so yes, the 24”/25”/26"/27” all have similar or close resolutions (1920x1200) but it’s like the same pixel on the 27” will be bigger (more stretched) resulting a bigger text. but doesn’t that mean theoretically lower image quality?

 

[polonyc2]

you're not stuck on a fixed setting...I have a 24" LCD (1920 x 1200) and the first thing I do is crank up the DPI to 130% which makes the text size perfect for me...the default DPI is definitely too small but that's the whole point of adjustable DPI

 

[Elledan]

Running my 20" CRTs at anything below 1600x1200 would have me running screaming for the hills. Too many memories of computer-illiterate people toying around behind their crappy systems.

More pixels mean that I can display larger images without having to scroll, which is ideal if you do a lot of photo editing, or just want to see more code or text of some file you're working on. While I agree that 1920x resolutions on a 15" screen is pushing things, I expect to see a larger resolution on a physically larger screen. Sadly LCD doesn't seem to offer this beyond a few options.