{ "numMessagesInTopic": 20, "nextInTime": 909, "senderId": "WEHyCivuVKS3J_jMdGbZsXyOE9UkSfW1eDASal9SlDRJ4dugufKUwIZng1k3Pkx2Y2fOx2P4fUEy5TAAifwmvOFrFsPJi7C9", "systemMessage": false, "subject": "Re: [IBM_T2X_LCD] Re: Replacing a T210", "from": "Dan Hartman <omvs@...>", "authorName": "Dan Hartman", "msgSnippet": "I was thinking of suggesting the 30 as well. If you push it back a bit farther on your desk, you should be able to make up for the 20% lower dot-pitch. I", "msgId": 908, "profile": "omvomv", "topicId": 899, "spamInfo": { "reason": "12", "isSpam": false }, "replyTo": "LIST", "userId": 145354184, "messageBody": "
>At 24", theoretically you can sit a little farther back and set the font
\n>size a little bigger. You may also want to try the same with an ACD 30.
\n>
\n>--wilson
\n>
\n>barkand wrote:
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>>Wilson,
\n>>
\n>>Thanks for your suggestions.
\n>>
\n>>However, the pixel pitch of the Dell 2005FPW is 0.258mm, basically
\n>>the same as that of the Dell 2001FPW (0.255mm) I'm evaluating now,
\n>>and the pixel pitch of the Dell 2405FPW is 0.270mm, which is even
\n>>greater.
\n>>
\n>>Since the ability of a monitor to display text as fully-formed
\n>>characters rather than as single-pixel strokes is inversely
\n>>proportional to its pixel pitch, it appears to me that neither of
\n>>these monitors would display text as fully-formed characters any
\n>>better than the 2001FPW, which as I mentioned in my original message
\n>>doesn't display them suchly until 12.5pt and above, compared to 10pt
\n>>and above on my beloved T210.
\n>>
\n>>Am I missing something here?
\n>>
\n>>Damien
\n>>
\n>>
\n>>
\n>>
\n>>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>Yahoo! Groups Links
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>
\n>