Am 05.04.19 um 13:42 schrieb Carlos E. R.:
On 05/04/2019 01.51, Felix Miata wrote:
Anton Aylward composed on 2019-04-04 17:13 (UTC-0400):
What would be nice is 2560X1600.
Those are seriously expensive. 2560x1440 can be had for half as much or less.
I'm curious. Why a particular resolution not that different from another is that expensive?
because it's more or less a business resolution. (aspect ratio 16:10) not the home/gamer/movie aspect_ratio (16:9). i use 2 pices (16:10) 2560x1600 flatron w3000h as double screen at one computer. on all my others i use 1920x1200 (16:10) what is mostly more expensive than 1920x1080 (16:9). and some weeks in past i tried to buy 1920x1200 in 4 different big media shops, none of them had only one in stock, answer of all shops: its not a tv-resolution /aspect ratio, so only a small amount of people like it. for me for business i prefer clearly 16:10. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bildaufl%C3%B6sung (scroll down for the chart) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution (german side has more resolutions in the chart) ============ only for information: the flatron w3000h could bought with a little luck at ebay /second hand for about 100-150€ but these days its not a really good screen. it seems always a little to green and adjusting the colors could only done with software. and i was not able to adjust it that white will be white and all other colors would be nice also. simoN
In any case, the resolution to use would be the native one of the monitor.
-- www.becherer.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org