I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
icons and text are miniscule.

On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.

When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
lower the resolution the larger the black borders.

I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.

Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?

Thanks in advance.

 

In news:d99uk5ddkd5gs5gcrat7qd7mhr07n0vjfk@4ax.com,
bobmct typed on Thu, 14 Jan 2010 09:13:42 -0500:
> I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
> current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
> icons and text are miniscule.
>
> On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
> display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
> appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.
>
> When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
> shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
> lower the resolution the larger the black borders.
>
> I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
> loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
> this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?
>
> Thanks in advance.

On my two old Toshiba 2595XDVD laptops, they do the same thing. That is
if I don't select stretch in the BIOS. Maybe this Dell works the same
way.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

 

"bobmct" <r.mariotti@fdcx.net> kirjoitti
viestissä:d99uk5ddkd5gs5gcrat7qd7mhr07n0vjfk@4ax.com...
> I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
> current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
> icons and text are miniscule.
>
> On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
> display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
> appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.
>
> When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
> shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
> lower the resolution the larger the black borders.
>
> I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
> loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
> this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?

Don't worry, there's nothing broken, and it's not a bug either. It's just
that in some situations resolution change is preferred to affect as on your
colleague's computer at the moment, but sometimes (as in your colleague's
case), the screen is wanted to scale up. To satisfy both needs, there's a
setting somewhere that the user can set up to his/her preference.

Most laptops I've seen have the setting somewhere under Display
Properties -> Settings -> Advanced (if it's Windows XP), though (at least
some) Dell's seem to have it in the BIOS settings.

On my ASUS notebook with NVIDIA graphics, there's under display properties
something called NVIDIA Control Panel. In there, I have in Display -> Change
flat panel scaling, a setting with name "When using a resolution lower than
my display's native resolution...", and under that there are four options:
- Use NVIDIA scaling
- Use NVIDIA scaling with fixed aspect ratio
- Use your display's built-in scaling
- do not scale

If your colleague has the same options there, one of two topmost ones will
do the trick.

But if the setting is in BIOS, look for a setting with terms 'scaling' and
'display'.


P.V.

 

On 1/14/2010 9:13 AM, bobmct wrote:
> I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
> current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
> icons and text are miniscule.
>
> On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
> display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
> appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.
>
> When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
> shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
> lower the resolution the larger the black borders.
>
> I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
> loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
> this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?
>
> Thanks in advance.
In XP the fixes are *right click the desktop* the display
properties screen appears

select Appearance\font size to adjust text size.
Also appearance\advanced\item\icon to set icons size.

Additionally from the display properties screen click
settings\advanced\dpi setting to enlarge everything

Stay away from changing to 1400x1050 setting as LCD screens
only look good at their native settings.

 

On Thu, 14 Jan 2010 22:585 -0500, Pen <nospam@nospam.net> wrote:

>On 1/14/2010 9:13 AM, bobmct wrote:
>> I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
>> current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
>> icons and text are miniscule.
>>
>> On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
>> display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
>> appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.
>>
>> When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
>> shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
>> lower the resolution the larger the black borders.
>>
>> I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
>> loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.
>>
>> Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
>> this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>In XP the fixes are *right click the desktop* the display
>properties screen appears
>
>select Appearance\font size to adjust text size.
>Also appearance\advanced\item\icon to set icons size.
>
>Additionally from the display properties screen click
>settings\advanced\dpi setting to enlarge everything
>
>Stay away from changing to 1400x1050 setting as LCD screens
>only look good at their native settings.

Well thank you both PV and Pen;

There was no LCD scaling setting in advanced setting nor anywhere in
the BIOS.

However, using Pen's suggestions I was able to enable the NVidia
control panel and increase the size of the desktop icons from 32 to 36
and increase the default font from 8 to 10 and that increased the size
of the items on the desktop sufficiently enough to make them appear
more like was I was looking for.

Thank you again for your replies.

 

You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG.

LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one,
fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels.
An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that
should ever be used.

To change the size of things (this changes EVERYTHING), use:

Display properties / Settings / Advanced / General / DPI Settings

Select "custom" from the drop down menu and "drag the ruler" however you
want.

This changes the size of everything proportionately without changing the
resolution.

As to how your display is behaving when you do change the resolution ...
in a sense, it's behaving properly in that it's keeping each screen
pixel corresponding to a physical pixel. Some display systems do this,
others "scale" the image (not desirable, in any situation). How the
laptop handles it is a function of the video chip and there is nothing
you can do about it (it's normally not a driver issue). But regardless,
it's not the right way to do it.


bobmct wrote:
> I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The
> current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the
> icons and text are miniscule.
>
> On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the
> display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop
> appearance albeit have a smaller footprint.
>
> When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually
> shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The
> lower the resolution the larger the black borders.
>
> I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a
> loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine.
>
> Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with
> this issue before and provide a suggested resolution?
>
> Thanks in advance.

 

In news:hiramg$h70$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:01 -0500:
> You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG.
>
> LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one,
> fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels.
> An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that
> should ever be used...

Really? The BIOS, POST, and while Windows is loading, doesn't use the
screen's native resolution. So how come those that build these things
don't listen to you?

Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of
800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really
dislike it. But under Windows, I can change it easily to 800x600 which
is so much better. And this is the resolution I use 99% of the time. I
even have from time to time used higher resolutions to view websites
that are very wide.

We can use different resolutions in two ways. One method actually uses
the screen's native resolution, but you use only a scrolling window of
the total desktop. Or if the resolution is less, it might use less of
the screen. The other way is reducing the larger resolution to fit into
the native resolution. Works well except for those tiny fonts and slows
the computer down. lol

Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor
eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it.
<grin>

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 

In article <hisl90$jiq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of
>800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really

You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM.

>Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
>disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor
>eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it.

LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use interpolation
to display non-native resolutions which lessens image quality.

 

In news:hissct$r25$1@reader1.panix.com,
the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:18:22 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <hisl90$jiq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen
>> resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there
>> and I really
>
> You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM.

That is the problem with Linux, isn't it? Everything is in the dang
manual which doesn't really exist! But is in pieces all over the
Internet at zillions of different IP addresses.

Say, this is the 21st Century in the Western world. Wouldn't it just be
better to put higher resolutions in the display properties so the user
can just use point and click to get there? You know, like Windows?

>> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
>> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with
>> poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go
>> for it.
>
> LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use interpolation
> to display non-native resolutions which lessens image quality.

Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E" on the
eye chart. Or all of those game designers who tells you to use lower
screen resolutions for improved performance. There are many reasons why
somebody might not want to use the native LCD screen resolutions. And I
don't fault anybody who wants to do so.

And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
again. As take a magnifying glass to a lit CRT screen and you will find
they are made up of tiny pixels as well. So they are not all that
different in this respect.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 

If you want to do things the wrong way, fine. Microsoft provided a way
to adjust the size of things. But telling the driver that the screen
resolution is one thing when it's really another will degrade image
quality. FACT.


BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hiramg$h70$1@news.eternal-september.org,
> Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:01 -0500:
>> You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG.
>>
>> LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one,
>> fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels.
>> An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that
>> should ever be used...
>
> Really? The BIOS, POST, and while Windows is loading, doesn't use the
> screen's native resolution. So how come those that build these things
> don't listen to you?
>
> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of
> 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really
> dislike it. But under Windows, I can change it easily to 800x600 which
> is so much better. And this is the resolution I use 99% of the time. I
> even have from time to time used higher resolutions to view websites
> that are very wide.
>
> We can use different resolutions in two ways. One method actually uses
> the screen's native resolution, but you use only a scrolling window of
> the total desktop. Or if the resolution is less, it might use less of
> the screen. The other way is reducing the larger resolution to fit into
> the native resolution. Works well except for those tiny fonts and slows
> the computer down. lol
>
> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor
> eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it.
> <grin>
>

 

Re: "Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E" on
the eye chart."

You are missing the point entirely. There ***IS*** a way to make things
arbitrarily bigger, WITHOUT telling the driver that the resolution is
something other than what it really is. Do that (lying to the driver)
will result in artifacts and image degradation that are simply not
necessary just to make things bigger.

BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hissct$r25$1@reader1.panix.com,
> the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:18:22 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <hisl90$jiq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen
>>> resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there
>>> and I really
>> You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM.
>
> That is the problem with Linux, isn't it? Everything is in the dang
> manual which doesn't really exist! But is in pieces all over the
> Internet at zillions of different IP addresses.
>
> Say, this is the 21st Century in the Western world. Wouldn't it just be
> better to put higher resolutions in the display properties so the user
> can just use point and click to get there? You know, like Windows?
>
>>> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
>>> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with
>>> poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go
>>> for it.
>> LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use interpolation
>> to display non-native resolutions which lessens image quality.
>
> Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E" on the
> eye chart. Or all of those game designers who tells you to use lower
> screen resolutions for improved performance. There are many reasons why
> somebody might not want to use the native LCD screen resolutions. And I
> don't fault anybody who wants to do so.
>
> And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
> again. As take a magnifying glass to a lit CRT screen and you will find
> they are made up of tiny pixels as well. So they are not all that
> different in this respect.
>

 

In news:hisuet$bag$2@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:53:26 -0500:
> Re: "Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E"
> on the eye chart."
>
> You are missing the point entirely. There ***IS*** a way to make
> things arbitrarily bigger, WITHOUT telling the driver that the
> resolution is something other than what it really is. Do that (lying
> to the driver) will result in artifacts and image degradation that
> are simply not necessary just to make things bigger.

Sometimes Barry (well most of the time now that I think of it), you
really go off of the deep end. What is this lying to the driver crap? It
isn't lying at all. As you are telling the driver what screen resolution
to use. There is no lying going on here at all.

And frankly, do in part of this discussion and for many other reasons. I
am not going to use the native 1440x900 resolution on my external 19
inch monitor for this netbook anymore. Starting today, I am going to be
using 800x600 with it. Why? It ain't because it is bigger, although that
is one plus. But I am near sighted so it doesn't benefit me as much as
other people.

1) First, I am really getting tired of resizing all of my windows
whenever I switch between internal and external displays. And I do this
all of the time. Keeping the displays the same, keeps all of the windows
in the right place and size. In this case, 800x600.

2) I also noticed using this lower resolution, this netbook is really
snappy. So there is a great improvement in performance as well. And we
are not even talking about playing those high performance games yet
either. As they also really get a nice boost.

Your method doesn't help here one bit. Switching between displays will
mess everything up and the performance goes downhill once again. Plus
trying to make everything look larger on higher resolutions never looks
right. Things don't fit right and windows don't look right. Sometimes
the text is even cutoff. No Barry, what you are selling isn't better.
Trust me.

> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hissct$r25$1@reader1.panix.com,
>> the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:18:22 +0000 (UTC):
>>> In article <hisl90$jiq$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>>> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen
>>>> resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck
>>>> there and I really
>>> You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM.
>>
>> That is the problem with Linux, isn't it? Everything is in the dang
>> manual which doesn't really exist! But is in pieces all over the
>> Internet at zillions of different IP addresses.
>>
>> Say, this is the 21st Century in the Western world. Wouldn't it just
>> be better to put higher resolutions in the display properties so the
>> user can just use point and click to get there? You know, like
>> Windows?
>>>> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
>>>> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with
>>>> poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go
>>>> for it.
>>> LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use
>>> interpolation to display non-native resolutions which lessens image
>>> quality.
>>
>> Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E" on
>> the eye chart. Or all of those game designers who tells you to use
>> lower screen resolutions for improved performance. There are many
>> reasons why somebody might not want to use the native LCD screen
>> resolutions. And I don't fault anybody who wants to do so.
>>
>> And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
>> again. As take a magnifying glass to a lit CRT screen and you will
>> find they are made up of tiny pixels as well. So they are not all
>> that different in this respect.

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 

In news:hisua0$bag$1@news.eternal-september.org,
Barry Watzman typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 12:50:48 -0500:
> If you want to do things the wrong way, fine. Microsoft provided a
> way to adjust the size of things. But telling the driver that the
> screen resolution is one thing when it's really another will degrade
> image quality. FACT.

Yes it will degrade the quality of the image. No argument there. And
being really nearsighted, I am one of the few who can actually see it. I
can actually see every pixel on the screen too without any devices. Same
is true of CRT displays too.

But still, there are lots of benefits of doing so. For myself, it is the
not having to resize all of the windows all of the time switching back
and forth between internal and external displays. Plus the added
performance and lower video and CPU temperatures are also a nice bonus.

Is the image very slightly not as sharp? You bet! Does it matter? Nope,
everything is larger remember? Hell this is heaven compared to my old
..52 pitch color monitors from the 80's. Where even 40x25 character
matrix was thousands of times more fuzzier than 800x600 on this 1440x900
LCD monitor. See what I mean now?

> BillW50 wrote:
>> In news:hiramg$h70$1@news.eternal-september.org,
>> Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:01 -0500:
>>> You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG.
>>>
>>> LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their
>>> one, fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical
>>> pixels. An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY
>>> resolution that should ever be used...
>>
>> Really? The BIOS, POST, and while Windows is loading, doesn't use the
>> screen's native resolution. So how come those that build these things
>> don't listen to you?
>>
>> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen
>> resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there
>> and I really dislike it. But under Windows, I can change it easily
>> to 800x600 which is so much better. And this is the resolution I use
>> 99% of the time. I even have from time to time used higher
>> resolutions to view websites that are very wide.
>>
>> We can use different resolutions in two ways. One method actually
>> uses the screen's native resolution, but you use only a scrolling
>> window of the total desktop. Or if the resolution is less, it might
>> use less of the screen. The other way is reducing the larger
>> resolution to fit into the native resolution. Works well except for
>> those tiny fonts and slows the computer down. lol
>>
>> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with
>> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with
>> poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go
>> for it. <grin>

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Windows XP SP2

 

In article <histgd$79e$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
>again.

Well, they're different on Earth. What planet are you from?

 

In news:hj0j33$sd$1@reader1.panix.com,
the wharf rat typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:04:03 +0000 (UTC):
> In article <histgd$79e$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>
>> And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
>> again.
>
> Well, they're different on Earth. What planet are you from?

Too lazy to take a magnifying glass to a color CRT screen, eh? I used to
manufacture them for Philips.

http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Windows XP SP3

 

In article <hj0mia$n2n$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>
>Too lazy to take a magnifying glass to a color CRT screen, eh? I used to
>manufacture them for Philips.

Oh, I get it. You're making a joke, right? Nerd humor...

No, really, all kidding aside, what color IS the sky on your
planet? Do you have a tail like the guys in "Avatar" ?

 

No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A pixel
is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor dot triads.


BillW50 wrote:
> In news:hj0j33$sd$1@reader1.panix.com,
> the wharf rat typed on Mon, 18 Jan 2010 03:04:03 +0000 (UTC):
>> In article <histgd$79e$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>>> And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think
>>> again.
>> Well, they're different on Earth. What planet are you from?
>
> Too lazy to take a magnifying glass to a color CRT screen, eh? I used to
> manufacture them for Philips.
>
> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm
>

 

Barry Watzman wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:43:55 -0500:
> No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A pixel
> is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor dot triads.

Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook,
every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them
pixels? And did you ever bother to visit this site I posted earlier? It
was in the very same post you replied to. With pictures no less. They
call them pixels too. So what you are saying is the whole world is
wrong, right?

> BillW50 wrote:
>> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm

--
Bill
Asus EEE PC 702G4 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC
Xandros Linux (build 2007-10-19 13:03)

 

In article <hj9u2k$j0a$1@news.eternal-september.org>,
BillW50 <BillW50@aol.kom> wrote:
>Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook,
>every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them
>pixels?

Everyone calls 'em dykes but they don't even like Melissa
Etheridge...

Oooooo, was that a cutting remark?

(I'm refering to the pliers of course

 

They do not call them pixels, and they are not pixels.

The electron beam of a CRT is not sufficiently well focused and does not
have sufficiently sharp edges (the edges are "fuzzy") to actually turn
on and off individual phosphor dot triads. There are no fixed pixels on
a CRT; pixels are formed by turning on and off the electron beam as it
sweeps. If you turn it on and off 640 times as it goes across the
screen, you have a 640 pixel display; if you turn it on and off 800
times, an 800 pixel display (the pixels are smaller), and 1024 and 1280
and so on. But to work well and produce a visually high quality image,
the "pixels" so formed need to encompass MULTIPLE phosphor dot triads,
e.g. phosphor dot triads (a single set of one each red, blue and green
phosphor) are much smaller than pixels. If you drive the resolution to
a point where this is not true, the image quality goes to hell very
quickly because, again, the focus and edge sharpness of the electron
beam don't ALLOW it to actually address a single phosphor dot triad.

BTW, I have worked for both computer mfgrs. and TV mfgrs. and in
broadcasting, since the 1960's. I worked for Zenith, and as a broadcast
engineer, and as a product manager for computer displays (both CRT and
LCD). I know what I'm talking about here.

Sure you can show blown up pictures of an image on a phosphor dot CRT
and see the individual phosphor dots. But those are not pixels.
Really, they are not. There are NO physical pixels on a CRT.

[Also, consider a monochrome (B&W) CRT; it has no individual dots at all
in the phosphor coating, but you can blow up a character image on such a
tube and see individual dots. They are "painted" on an absolutely
continuous coating by turning the electron beam on and off. It forms
dots .... but they are not physical entities.]


BillW50 wrote:
> Barry Watzman wrote on Wed, 20 Jan 2010 23:43:55 -0500:
>> No bill; a phosphor dot triad is not the same thing as a pixel. A
>> pixel is larger and for proper operation will cover multiple phosphor
>> dot triads.
>
> Really? Then how do you explain every tech journal, every textbook,
> every instructor, every TV tech, and any engineer I ever met calls them
> pixels? And did you ever bother to visit this site I posted earlier? It
> was in the very same post you replied to. With pictures no less. They
> call them pixels too. So what you are saying is the whole world is
> wrong, right?
>
>> BillW50 wrote:
>>> http://express.howstuffworks.com/exp-tv1.htm
>