Originally Posted by thealex132
I just have taskbar and 5 icons, and rocketdock that stays very hidden. I 'only' have one 1920x1080 monitor because I can't afford anything more, but 1280x1024 IMO is worse than even 1280x800 and its the same price if not cheaper. Dual core Xeon suggests he could at least afford 1440x900 Samsung monitor that's like $90
Unless ofc he is using that for graphical design and its a CRT or something. But that then begs the question, why no IPS >_>?
Maaaaan. Your thoughts are somewhat ridiculous
1280x1024 >> 1280x800, even for gaming IMO
You really don't know how CRT monitors work, now do you? If he was using a CRT for graphical design, it would be a higher quality one, in which case the resolution would not be so ridiculously low. It would be either 2048x1536 or 2304x1440, since those are the two main resolutions of high quality CRT monitors that are popular.
Since it's only 1280x1024, it would not be a high quality CRT, and thus, even worse than any IPS panel.
Why high quality CRT over IPS? Because aperture grille CRT is a million times better than IPS.
For browsing, 1280x1024 does the job just as fine as 1920x1080. You can't view two full pages side by side on either, and both have roughly the same height.