http://cadence.advanstar.com/2001/0101/pr0101_cornerstone.html

Have you played with BigMonitor software? It's a freebie. I used it in my 19" CRT before I moved to dual 17 LCDs.

EDIT.

The link on that review page doesn't work. It looks like Cornerstone went out of business, probably a victim of the LCD wave. You may be able to find the bigmonitor software somewhere on the web.

setup software ?

cornerstone went to monitors direct .. which seem to have also disappeared , but this is what is left of BIG MONITORS software

http://www.sofotex.com/MonitorsDirect-ToolKit-download_L4010.html

OK, i realize i must be rather odd in this respect, but i find 1280x1024 to be the absolute minimum useful resolution on any size monitor. I've used it on 14" CRTs back when that was the largest glass we could afford. I would be running 1600x1200 or higher if my monitors supported it.

Right now i've got dual 17" monitors at work with a 2560x1024 desktop. I set the font sizes in most software to a notch smaller than the default, and i usually sit back at least 2 or 3 feet from the glass. When other people come into my office they have to just about put their nose up to the screen to read it (great for privacy!). Are my eyes really that much better than everyone else's? Then again, if i take my glasses off i can barely tell where the monitor is!

What i usually recommend is to use the highest resolution your display can support, then increase the font sizing globally in Windows' display settings until you can read it. The buttons and icons will still be small, but usually it only takes a day to get used to where and what they are and then you don't have to read them anymore. This way you'll have a lot more space on the screen for working on your project instead of having the screen filled with control buttons and menues. I also reduce the width of scroll bars from 22 pixels to 12 pixels. It may not seem like big change, but it frees up quite a bit of space.

I run a pair of 19's, primary is 1280x1024.

Secondary is 1024x768. I move things I want larger to this side like the preivew window. Having things bigger helps me with masking and other tasks. Sometimes I even take it down to 800x600 if I really want to get things perfect. Those big pixels make it easier to tweak.

let me see,

1 ... 2 ... 3 ... can i get back you on this.

Actually I use two 17 inch monitors at 1280 x 1024. I have no idea what dpi they are. One is a CTX, the other an IBM.

It is possible to set the size of text in so many different places inside windows that you are not limited when using a high resolution to seeing tiny text. The desktop, Explorer and Iexplorer all have registry tweaks and preference settings that can alter how text is interpreted.

Okay, second question:

Those of you running anything other than 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x960, or 1600x1200--why are you running a setup with non-square pixels? In other words, a circle will show as an ellipse--is that what you want, or is there some other reason for using that pixel count?

No, it wasn't setup software. It was a utility that adjusted your fonts to a quite readable size even if you were running your monitor at really high resolution. I used to use on my W2K machine. Perhaps with XP you don't need it anymore? Man, Cornerstone sure did seem to go fast.

I only read the top post, but I use a 15.4" wide monitor with a 1920x1200 res. You wanna talk small, I display in my native res at 120dpi.

Dave

I use 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960 because ... well ... because my display adapter/monitor combination doesn't have a 960 setting! Grrrrrr. However, it's not that far off from being square. I can adjust the image to be slightly taller and narrower on the monitor to partially correct for it.

Maybe it's just a me thing again, but even if my monitor's proportions are incorrect, i don't even notice the difference anymore. Circles look like circles to me, even if they're not. I guess i've just gotten used to it.