I look first to a screen’s native resolution rather than its physical size. “Larger” isn’t always a better choice. The other day, I was in the local CompuBestCity and overheard the sales clerk pushing a 19” LCD over its 17” counterpart. He kept spewing out the upgrade mantra. Both screens, though, ran at the same native resolution. The larger model wouldn’t provide any more working space. It would just be a matter of one’s own comfort level. For me, a 17” flat panel running at 1280x1024 is practically ideal. A ViewSonic model is connected to my Mac-mini. For folks with less than perfect eyesight, a 19” model with the same specs might be a better choice.
My laptop is a G4 iBook with a 14” screen running at 1024x768. It’s a nice compromise. Text could be a bit sharper but the screen affords me a comfortable working distance. The new MacBook’s display leaves me a bit cold…too many pixels crammed in too small of a space.
I can understand the need for an ultra-high resolution, wide screen display…graphic designers, video editors and, I suppose, consumers who are enamored of the whole digital lifestyle scene. All those pixels would go to waste with my Mac. I’m a bit old school here, preferring a simpler and less cluttered desktop. The “Hide Others” command gets quite a bit of use and I find the presence of multiple apps or processes on screen to be a distraction.

