caseyliss:

I’m sitting at a common-area desk for the next week or two, where the above monitor is sitting.  It’s a 19” CRT, and the first CRT I’ve used in several years now.  What’s even more curious than its prodigious depth, and than its seemingly-uncrisp picture, is its height.  I haven’t used a 4:3 monitor in well over a year now.
My how times have changed.

You find its height curious, but do you prefer working on a 16:9 (or 16:10) monitor, and if so, why?
When I replaced my Dell CRT a few years ago (with a great Sony tube), I had to look pretty hard to find a decent 4:3 LCD (NEC MultiSync 90GX2), and even though it’s a great monitor, its native resolution (1280x1024) is lower than I’d like it to be, a problem I didn’t have with CRTs.

caseyliss:

I’m sitting at a common-area desk for the next week or two, where the above monitor is sitting. It’s a 19” CRT, and the first CRT I’ve used in several years now. What’s even more curious than its prodigious depth, and than its seemingly-uncrisp picture, is its height. I haven’t used a 4:3 monitor in well over a year now.

My how times have changed.

You find its height curious, but do you prefer working on a 16:9 (or 16:10) monitor, and if so, why?

When I replaced my Dell CRT a few years ago (with a great Sony tube), I had to look pretty hard to find a decent 4:3 LCD (NEC MultiSync 90GX2), and even though it’s a great monitor, its native resolution (1280x1024) is lower than I’d like it to be, a problem I didn’t have with CRTs.

(Reblogged from caseyliss)

Notes

  1. elbles reblogged this from caseyliss and added:
    You find its height curious, but do you prefer working on...16:9 (or 16:10) monitor,
  2. caseyliss posted this