Native screen resolution and why we should use it?

Hi all, I have a Sony Vaio AR770 17" and the screen is big and gorgeous but I find the native resolution of 1920 by 1200 to be just too much a strain. I have a real problem reading the fonts and doing general duties, so after trying a bunch of different res's I have it set to 1600 by 1000 and it's just perfect for all my needs.

Now I have read on this forum in numerous places that you should keep your native resolution for best quality and increase your font sizes and icon sizes instead. Can someone please explain to me in technical terms why I should do this over changing my resolution? my new res has the same aspect as the native so there's no morphing and to my eyes the quality of everything is identical, and alot easier to read.

Thankyou

 

This is a matter of preference. Some low end LCDs look terrible at anything other than native resolution, and others look great no matter which resolution is used. If you like how your display looks at 1600x1000, then run it that way. There is no danger of damaging your display (or reducing the life of it), so keep what you like and change what you don't.

I have yet to see any technical explanation (backed up by published documents) as to why native resolution is preferred. If anyone can supply such information, then I'll revise my opinion.

 

On a LCD the native resolution is determined by the actual number of pixels. Any other resolution is just emulated. Since it is emulated, it won't look as good. Here is a link that may explain better: http://compreviews.about.com/od/multimedia/a/LCDSpecs.htm

 

Try changing the DPI. It'll make the text and icons bigger without blurring the picture.

 

It is blurring the picture when you run it at the lower resolution, that bothers me when looking at a display, but if it doesn't bother you, then no problem.

Greg

 

Some zooms are horrible... for example IE7 for notebokreview while Firefox is fine...
Anyway:
Isn't one of the argumetns for native resolution the fact that the graphics card does not need to calculate how to adapt a picture to fit the pixels?

if my screen is 1920*1080 (or whatever it is) and I run it at 1600*900 then some "new pixels" need to be displayed by 2.
Wouldn't htis require some additional computing?

Else - no danger associated wih it as far as logic goes.

 

Thanks guys, I appreciate the technical background info for the situation, but I think I'll keep it at 1600 x 1000 as It just looks better and smoother to my eyes. It must be the good quality of the sony screen or something.