Native resolution over inches...

Samione · 15 Jul 2007 at 21:35

Am I right in saying a 20" with a native resolution of 1680x1050 and a 22" with a native resolution of 1680x1050, effectively have the same amount of "space" on the screen? The resolution scales up with the size of the monitor so if you had a 30" monitor running windows on 1680x1050 the taskbar would be about 3inches thick, right? Someone correct me if i'm wrong but if this is the case, for people who are worried about screen real estate like designers etc then it's the native res that's paramount and not the screen size, and in which case would be financially better of with a 20" over a 22" with the same native resolution... Maybe this is obvious and i'm an idiot, but if it's not then it should save people some cash

JamieL · 15 Jul 2007 at 21:40

Indeed, on a 20" running @ 1680x1050 you would see exactly the same, well, have the same 'real estate' as an 100" @ 1680x1050... just everything would be a lot bigger on a 100" screen... you wouldn't be able to fit more on it though.

Samione · 15 Jul 2007 at 21:58

In which case it is obvious and I am infact and idiot

Clarkey · 15 Jul 2007 at 22:05

yes its fairly obvious

Marse · 15 Jul 2007 at 22:32

I hope the OP doesn’t mind an extension to the question from another……..

I’m thinking of going from a 20“monitor to a 24“ WS monitor.

I’ve checked as best I can and at the moment I have approx 87 pixels per inch resolution on the 20” monitor at 1024 x 1280.

A 24” WS at 1200 x 1920 seems to give about 94 pixels per inch.

Does that mean that say individual characters for example will be larger or smaller on the WS monitor.

Fortunately for my poor eyes the difference does not seem to be great.

Sorted: More pixels per inch equals smaller characters – I think.