1600/1200 screen shot

[lmw]

I currents have a 17" CRT and normally use the 800/600 setting. When I use 1280/1024 i have a little trouble reading the player names on poker tables and fonts on web pages. I am getting a 2001fp soon and was wondering how small things get when you are using 1600/1200.

[whodaman]

there gonna be a lot smaller than 800x600 on a 17"

[smoore]

This is an actual case where size isn't everything. The picture on the 2001fp is going to be very clear and sharp. If you have normal vision there shouldn't be any problem.

1600x1200 on a 2001 FP is similar in size to 1024 on a 17 inch CRT or 1280 on a 19 inch CRT. Not exactly the same, but relative size is similar. That said, the clarity of the picture is way, way better and LCDs tend to be easier on the eyes than CRTs.

-dustyn

I have a 17 inch graphics series (maybe 18, not sure) that has 1600/1200 resoluton. it is way hard on my eyes though. I would also like to see a 2001FP screen shot with 4 tables. Thanks!

[ckmo]

mabye I'm missing something here but wouldn't a screen shot of a 2001fp at 1600x1200 res not do you any good since you'll be looking at it on your own small monitor.....

ah yeah i realized that haha. would a picture from an observer looking at the computer do?

[Nomad84]

[ QUOTE ]
mabye I'm missing something here but wouldn't a screen shot of a 2001fp at 1600x1200 res not do you any good since you'll be looking at it on your own small monitor.....

[/ QUOTE ]

I was thinking the same thing. 1600x1200 screenshot won't look any different to you just because someone was using a 2001fp when they took it. If you are looking at a 1600x1200 image (screenshot) on your monitor (which is set at 1600x1200), then it won't look any different than if you were playing yourself. It won't do anything to help you make your decision. Probably the best thing to do is to set your 17" monitor to 1280x1024 resolution and open a table. The physical size of everything will be about the same at 1280x1024 on a 17" CRT as on a 2001fp at 1600x1200. As mentioned above, the LCD will probably be easier to read, but this will give you an idea of the physical size of the tables.

[ckmo]

fwiw before I bought a 2001fp I was using a 19in crt at 1600x1200 and there was a significant size difference between the 2 imo. I would think that the majority would not have a problem viewing the 2001fp at max res but I don't have a problem using my 15in laptop at 1600x1200 either so maybe I'm not the one to answer. If you really want to get an exact idea of how big it will be you could do the math and compare the actual size difference of the displays or the 17in idea from above would probably be a pretty good estimation.

[CORed]

I run 1600x1200 on a 2001 FP on my work PC AND have no trouble reading it. Then again, I run 1280x1024 on 17" CRT at home and don't have any problem with that. I suspect maybe your CRT is starting to get out of focus, as they often do when they get older.