5/10    I remember reading that flat-panels work best at their singluar native
        resolution (usually something like 1024x768) and looked not as good at
        other resolutions. Do current flat-panels still have such issues?
        \_ Yes.  It's funadmental to the design.  -tom
        \_ I just bought a Dell Inspiron 8000 with a native resolution of
           1400x1050 and although the display does not look as sharp in a
           non-native resolution (like 1280x1024 or 1024x768) it is more
           than acceptable.  I don't see any strange artifacts of things of
           that nature, I believe the technology for doing this has advanced
           in recent years. -eric
           \_ The only way you could ever have one that looked (nearly) as
              good as a CRT is if you had a high enough resolution such that
              you could use even multiples of scaled pixels to simulate the
              lower resolution.  i.e.: you can't "do" a clean 640x480 with
              a 1024x768 monitor, but you could with a 1280x960 screen (use
              a square of 4 pixels to simulate a single larger one), and it
              would look just fine.
        \_ I assume you mean LCD displays?  there are also plasma flat panels.
           LCDs obviously have a native resolution.
           \_ plasma displays are cell-based too. but w/ additional color
              fidelity than lcds, they usually show fuzzy resampling
              artifacts instead of the interleaved integer pixel expansions
              of lcd panels at non-native resolutions.