Pixel ratios @ 15" vs. 17" vs. 19" LCD's

O

optionsplayer

There has been a couple of discussions recently about the benefits of LCD screens, and what kind of particular set ups and quantities of screens traders are using.....

Here is my concern. For several years, I have been using 98SE at a pixel ratio of 800 by 600. Everything is big. Big screens, big fonts, you get the big picture........

I am looking for feedback regarding the transition of the XP system/LCD screen hook up with a higher pixel ratio. In other words, if you are running 1024 by 768 pixels or higher with a 17" or 19" LCD, do you find yourself squinting allot????

Does it really matter to your interface and everyday quality of life to the exact inch of screen that you use........ I have heard that when using XP & LCD screens, you have no choice but to run the higher pixel ratios which gives you much smaller icon and font viewability.

In this sense, would you be better off saving a ton of $$$ and just buying more 15" LCD screens and not having to squint???

Thanks in advance to TC or gnome or any other gurus who care to drop some knowledge here.............
 
I use 1280x1024 on an 18 in lcd with xp. There are various ways to increase font size either through the display menu or the video card advanced properties. My monitor also came with a utility called Liquidscreen which is supposed to compensate for the larger screen resolution though I didn't install the software.

Visually I like the 18 better than my 15.
 
Quote from optionsplayer:

There has been a couple of discussions recently about the benefits of LCD screens, and what kind of particular set ups and quantities of screens traders are using.....

Here is my concern. For several years, I have been using 98SE at a pixel ratio of 800 by 600. Everything is big. Big screens, big fonts, you get the big picture........

I am looking for feedback regarding the transition of the XP system/LCD screen hook up with a higher pixel ratio. In other words, if you are running 1024 by 768 pixels or higher with a 17" or 19" LCD, do you find yourself squinting allot????

Does it really matter to your interface and everyday quality of life to the exact inch of screen that you use........ I have heard that when using XP & LCD screens, you have no choice but to run the higher pixel ratios which gives you much smaller icon and font viewability.

In this sense, would you be better off saving a ton of $$$ and just buying more 15" LCD screens and not having to squint???

Thanks in advance to TC or gnome or any other gurus who care to drop some knowledge here.............
More...

You'd really but a gasket if you saw the 15" LCD laptops with UXGA at 1600x1200 resolution...

Dell has an example on their website, as well as other mfgrs now offer this configuration as standard.

Sony pushed the envelope yet again, and created the 16" LCD laptop with 1600x1200 UXGA, which in contrast increases the aspect ratio of the pixel displays.

Talk about getting maximum throughput for minimum effort, then you'll see the value of the pixel to aspect ratio issue; especially if you stare at a screen all day, trying to trade the markets.
 
I don't know a lot about this, so I may not understand your question, but I run an 18" and 15" LCD monitor together. I expand the desktop over both of them, and I run an Excel spreadsheet that uses both monitors. The 15" is 1024x768, and the 18" is 1280x1024. The cells and print are about the same size on each monitor, but they are slightly larger on the 15". I prefer the 18" because I can see more of the spreadsheet at once on it. I think your usage will determine which would be better, because you can get a lot more square inches per dollar with a smaller monitor if you don't care how much info is displayed on one monitor.
 
I am running (1) 15" for my IB TWS and (3) 17" set at 1024 by 768 pixels for qcharts and sierra charts. This is very easy on the eyes and works great. I am running a Matrox G200 quad to drive the monitors. The best thing about the set up is I got 2 of my 17" monitors and my G200 on ebay for a good price.
Happy trading. Nas :p
 
Quote from optionsplayer:

There has been a couple of discussions recently about the benefits of LCD screens, and what kind of particular set ups and quantities of screens traders are using.....

Here is my concern. For several years, I have been using 98SE at a pixel ratio of 800 by 600. Everything is big. Big screens, big fonts, you get the big picture........

I am looking for feedback regarding the transition of the XP system/LCD screen hook up with a higher pixel ratio. In other words, if you are running 1024 by 768 pixels or higher with a 17" or 19" LCD, do you find yourself squinting allot????

Does it really matter to your interface and everyday quality of life to the exact inch of screen that you use........ I have heard that when using XP & LCD screens, you have no choice but to run the higher pixel ratios which gives you much smaller icon and font viewability.

In this sense, would you be better off saving a ton of $$$ and just buying more 15" LCD screens and not having to squint???

Thanks in advance to TC or gnome or any other gurus who care to drop some knowledge here.............
More...

I recently purchased a 19" LCD which runs at 1280 X 1024 My previous setup was a 19" CRT at 800 X 600. It was difficult at first to adjust to the resolution being so much higher. I tried running the LCD at lower resolutions, but image quality suffered far too greatly. In the end I discovered what's called a DPI setting. This adjusts screen items to be larger even in higher resolutions. It has helped quite a bit, but some things are still small (preset fonts on web pages mostly). The icons and taskbars etc. are now properly sized for what I was used to. This DPI setting does not effect graphics such as charts.

For what it's worth.

Banker
 
Quote from optionsplayer:

There has been a couple of discussions recently about the benefits of LCD screens, and what kind of particular set ups and quantities of screens traders are using.....

Here is my concern. For several years, I have been using 98SE at a pixel ratio of 800 by 600. Everything is big. Big screens, big fonts, you get the big picture........

I am looking for feedback regarding the transition of the XP system/LCD screen hook up with a higher pixel ratio. In other words, if you are running 1024 by 768 pixels or higher with a 17" or 19" LCD, do you find yourself squinting allot????

Does it really matter to your interface and everyday quality of life to the exact inch of screen that you use........ I have heard that when using XP & LCD screens, you have no choice but to run the higher pixel ratios which gives you much smaller icon and font viewability.

In this sense, would you be better off saving a ton of $$$ and just buying more 15" LCD screens and not having to squint???

Thanks in advance to TC or gnome or any other gurus who care to drop some knowledge here.............
More...

This is all a matter of personal preference. I suggest you go to your local CompUSA/Best Buy/Micro Center store and view some LCD's at their native resolution. Not all LCDs of the same size have the same native. Some good 17" have 1024 X 768, though most are 1280 X 1024.

Personally, I run my 19" CRT's at 1024 X 768, and my 17" LCD at 1280 X 1024... Surprisingly good res on this one at 1024 X 768, too....

Before you buy an LCD, you really should see it in action at its native.... Nothin' wrong with a bunch of 15"ers, either.

One more note... My Primary monitor is still a CRT. That's just because I often eat at the computer, open a pop (or just slop a beer). Wouldn't want to be cleaning the screen of an LCD as often as I clean the CRT. :D
 
Quote from Eldredge:

I don't know a lot about this, so I may not understand your question, but I run an 18" and 15" LCD monitor together. I expand the desktop over both of them, and I run an Excel spreadsheet that uses both monitors. The 15" is 1024x768, and the 18" is 1280x1024. The cells and print are about the same size on each monitor, but they are slightly larger on the 15". I prefer the 18" because I can see more of the spreadsheet at once on it. I think your usage will determine which would be better, because you can get a lot more square inches per dollar with a smaller monitor if you don't care how much info is displayed on one monitor.
More...

what you just described is what the front office desktop traders call "screen real estate". Higher pixel resolution and greater screen density are what provides for greater content, as you described. Its invaluable to have greater density when handling large volumes of data. Analytical time (mental thought processes) when seeing the whole picture on one screen, instead of having to buffer the Excel spreadsheet in ones' mind and scroll from right-left/up-down just to see the same things.

You probably could get better than 1920x1600 on the 18" monitor depending on the video card's memory buffers. Try reconfiguration on your screen density.
 
Quote from gnome:



This is all a matter of personal preference. I suggest you go to your local CompUSA/Best Buy/Micro Center store and view some LCD's at their native resolution. Not all LCDs of the same size have the same native. Some good 17" have 1024 X 768, though most are 1280 X 1024.

Personally, I run my 19" CRT's at 1024 X 768, and my 17" LCD at 1280 X 1024... Surprisingly good res on this one at 1024 X 768, too....

Before you buy an LCD, you really should see it in action at its native.... Nothin' wrong with a bunch of 15"ers, either.

One more note... My Primary monitor is still a CRT. That's just because I often eat at the computer, open a pop (or just slop a beer). Wouldn't want to be cleaning the screen of an LCD as often as I clean the CRT. :D
More...

here, here

((burp....))
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top