<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"> For years I have been heavily biased against<br>
> VGA connections to LCD monitors because I have seen plenty of setups<br>
> where using VGA instead of DVI resulted in a slightly blurry picture.<br>
<br>
</div>Most people aren't using the native resolution of the LCD from their<br>
analog VGA port. I've often seen people buy a relatively cheap LCD<br>
display and leave it at 800x600 or 1024x768 since that's what their<br>
CRT was set to. They say, "Yeah, it's kinda blurry but it was cheap."<br>
I flip the resolution to the native res of the LCD and they're blown<br>
away at how good it looks except, "Why is everything so small now?".<br>
Oy vey.<br>
<div><div></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Very true, but the setups I was referring to were native resolution. I've owned a couple of different LCD monitors that had both VGA and DVI ports, and neither of them ever looked terribly good when being fed an analog signal. <br>
<br>Seeing an LCD panel at a non-native resolution really pisses me off. The worst is when I see a 1440x900 15" laptop panel at 1024x768. Call me crazy, but I think circles should be round. <br><br>Of course, I do my best to bite my tongue when I see such things, knowing full well that I have no business caring in the first place. <br>
<br>When I walked into my next door neighbor's house on Super Bowl Sunday and saw his brand new 42" LCD (which replaced a 32" CRT) displaying a stretched SD picture , well, that was more than I could take. <br>
<br>-chris <br> </div></div><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>TV/IT Engineer<br>WCJB-TV Gainesville, FL<br>(352) 416 0648<br><a href="mailto:cribe@wcjb.com">cribe@wcjb.com</a>