Screen Resolution

[iceman]

Hi guys.

Just want to get some feedback on what screen resolution you run at..

Most people would be 1024x768 or above, but stats show that some still run in 800x600.

For those that do still run at 800x600, please post the reasons why.. do you have bad eyesight? Do you not know how to change it?

If you're not sure how to check what resolution you're running at, right-click on the desktop and go to "Properties", then the "Settings" tab. On the bottom right side of that window you'll see the resolution. (see attached pic)

The reason i'm asking is so I can take this feedback into the redesign of the IceInSpace site.

[xstream]

1280 x 1024 here.

[ving]

1024x768....

for those running 800x600 because of text size try running 1024x768 and clicking view then going to text size and picking a larger size text :)

[[1ponders]]

1280x1024. don't ya just love 19" screens

[ving]

no... I had a 21" and it was a pain. it took up too much room and was so heavey the desk now has a permanent bow to it!

[BC]

1920 x 1200 here. Just took delivery of my new 24" flat screen. Is this called resolution fever?

[[1ponders]]

No ving a computer monitor , not a TV (flat screen any way :P) Actually I hooked my Laptop up to the plasma the other night. Now THATS a computer screen :D

[ving]

I was actually quite glad when the 21" died.... I now have a entirely reasonable 17" :)

[iceman]

Holy cow BC! Nice! I have a 21" at home, it's great for online games :) But ving's right, it's reallllly heavy.

[Jonathan]

1280 x 1024 on a 19" monitor both at work and at home. It is a bit big at home, takes up too much of the desk.

[Thiink]

1280x1024 here on a 19" LCD. Its not heavy and doesnt take up much desk space! :D

[Librarian64]

1280 x 1024 (19 inch monitor) at home. 1024 x768 at smaller work monitors.

[slice of heaven]

Thats OK for the main text but popups are still small text though.
Ive only a 14" monitor and the 800x600 is the most comfortable to use.
Unless there's more options ????

[mch62]

1280 x 1024 @100Hz on a 22"CRT.
medium text size.

[Nightshift]

Warning : This is a bit of a rant.
As IT manager for a six campus TAFE Institute here on the Sunshine coast, and.... Ex Service Manager for Samsung Australia (the largest Korean Manufacturer of CRT picture tubes and second largest tube manufacturer in the world, if you dont believe me take the back off your TV) let me give you some technical background.
LCD or Plasma screens are marketing hype, mostly, yes they look sexy and the colours can be vibrant but the dot pitch resolution and the way that they colour converge leaves them looking pretty ordinary at high resolutions against a good quality CRT at one tenth the price. In short, if you are serious about high end graphic output and you work all day at your PC then buy a good CRT, if you want to impress your friends and have the latest technology but not necessarily the best image then but a LCD, weight and size should have NOTHING to do with it, buy a bigger desk if required but dont buy garbage becasue your desk wont cater for the good stuff. Now as for resolution, 1024 X 768 is the chosen resolution of most Govt agencies (including this one) and most web developers as it is the optimum resolution for web sites to be developed, 800 X 600 if your near blind and as high as your video card will allow if your in to graphics. Remember that displaying an image is not the same thing as generating it, that is a function of your video card and you can have a 50" monitor if you want but your $24.95 video card will let you down. Then comes the whole question of animation and resolution, ie. Gaming or video production, lets not go there, as you can see it is quite a complex issue and like buying a telescope, should be looked at holistically not just based on wow factor. For what its worth, I started in the computer game in 1983 and we had 320 X 200 (CGA) 8 colour screens if we were lucky and mono (Green or amber) high resolution 640 X 480 if we were not. Cheers, Dennis.

[slice of heaven]

Nice post Dennis :thumbsup:

[ving]

like your signature says hey?

[iceman]

Good post dennis, I think you're saying "forget slice of heaven, develop it for 1024x768 and be done with it" :)

[slice of heaven]

Yeah I agree.
Dont stop progress on my behalf, I might finally get rid of this tincan and piece of string setup with a gameboy sized screen and get modern. :bashcomp:

[ballaratdragons]

800 x 600 here.

When I tried to enlarge the size it goes off centre and you can only see 75% of the page!

So, 800 x 600 is the best I can get.

Also Mike, the way you said to check by right click on desktop etc doesn't work on my pooter. I had to go into 'Desktop' then 'My Computer' then 'Control Panel' then 'Display' then 'Settings'. Long way round but I got there.

By the way, my monitor is 13" diagonally! (10.5" across, 8" high)

[slice of heaven]

Youll have to adjust your monitor and maybe your window size BD

[ballaratdragons]

Huh?

[slice of heaven]

Even I can do that BD

[ving]

your monitor will have adjustment buttons on it ken so you can resize and move the image up/down and left/right (alt/az :P). oh and brightness and contrast...

[Striker]

I run mine 1024 x 768 32bit colour with text on Medium size on a 19" monitor...

I dont like High Rez webpages.....their too small.

Its personal preference.

Even though I have a very powerful computer I actualy used to run my 3D online games on 800 x 600 with the same set up...this gave me more FPS and larger targets to shoot...its actualy a lot better to run low rez then high rez for 3D shooters..keep that in mind if you want to take the online gaming scene seriously.

[frogman]

1024X768 on my two monitors.. i run extended desktop so i can browse on one and chat and watch videos/movis on the other!

Extended desktop rules...
Anthony

[ving]

well my extended desktop is my TV... movie on the tv and whatever on the monitor :P

[syzygy]

I use 800 x 600 on a 17" CRT as I find it more comfortable for my tired old eyes. I think what you use the system for will largely determine your needs. I don't do graphics work or gaming so clarity of text is the most important thing to me. The sound card gets a worse flogging than the video in this box.

Regards,
Chris

[asimov]

800X600 true colour 32 bit 15" monitor. Just seems the optimal size for me & my wife.

[acropolite]

1280x1024 here, just got a new LCD monitor only 17 inch but 1280x1024 is the native resolution, hence sharpest picture. My short focus isn't brilliant but that resolution I find best. I could always increase the screen font size if it was too small. I'm just starting to build a personal web site so my page sizes reflect my own settings but I intend to set up some scripting to detect screen sizes and present alternate size pages for browsers at lower resolutions. :bashcomp:

[Thiink]

Hi Dennis. I'm sure you are the same, but I sit in front of a computer as part of my job for 7hours per day, 5 days a week. I had a good quality 17" CRT previous to this 19" LCD, and I can tell you the LCD is about 200% easier on my eyes than any CRT I've ever used (including the Samsung CRT I have at home), even at higher resolutions (up to 1280x1024). At the moment I don't think I would ever go back to staring at a CRT at work as long as I can get away with it, my eyes just cant hack it. And for what it is worth; I also work for a government department, and we are shifting to 17/19" LCD monitors as standard (mostly already happened). As for the size and weight problem, in an office with limited space, I'd argue that size and weight don't have any bearing..

My 19" LCD here looks just as crisp and sharp at 1280x1024/32-bit/60 or 75hz as the 17" CRT at 1024x768/32-bit/75hz sitting beside it.. The colour thing I cant comment on as I am colour blind.

ps. this isn't a flame, just discussing some of the points you mentioned.

[acropolite]

I completely agree Simon, add to that the fact that you get some nasty electromagnetic radiation from the front of CRT's.

[ving]

but I like electormagnetic thingys!!! :D

[Sausageman]

Still using 800 X 600 I'm afraid, just for my eyesight though...LOL

Mike

[h0ughy]

I think the poll is rigged, you can only vote once! :rofl:

I have several PC's.
Yes I am a capitalist that keeps his aquisitions!

the list includes (complete and working) 2 laptops (2,4 P4, 3.04P4) 3 athlon2600 or better and a P4 1700 and a pentiumIII 1 gig, a sempron 2800 (I gave a second sempron away to a mate, only bought it for an assignment), and until the weekend a Athlonxp3000 (have fun Mike :thumbsup: ). I have 4 19" monitors (2FlatScreen), 17" , 15" and the laptop screens are maxed out at 1200*800 and 1024*768. they all run at different resolutions. Mind you I was looking at getting the 30" LCD flat panel advertised at BigW for $1998, for my failing eyesight of course :D

[Orion]

1034x768, 14" monitor.

[Astroman]

I run 1024 x 768 on all the monitors and machines I owned. including the old 15" I ran at 1024x768 for a while.

[ballaratdragons]

OK! I have resized my monitor to the next size up, 1024 x 768 and set the colour to 32 bit true colour.

Now, apart from the writing being to small to read what other benefit is there??????? It all looks the same, just tiny writing.

[iceman]

You can fit more of the window on the screen, less scroll bar usage! Better use of real estate :)

You can also try upsizing the text size, Ving gave suggestions on how to do that on page 1.

[ballaratdragons]

Thanks Mike. I will give it a try for a while and see how my eyes go.

If everyone typed in bold it would be easier to read LOL

[trufflehunter]

1280 x 1024 on the main PC, 1024 x 768 on the lappy.
It's considered 'standard practice' to develop web pages for 800 x 600, but most people run at 1024 x 768 at least these days.

Make 'em scroll, I say! :P

[RAJAH235]

I have enough trouble finding the keypad with normal vision, & run 800 x 600 on a 'MAGVIEW' 17" flat CRT. Works very nicely, thank you. :D L. Tried smaller, didn't like!

[ballaratdragons]

Well, after getting a headache from eye strain and Cheryl screaming out "What have you done to this computer" I have put it back to 800 x 600 again so I can read it!

Was worth a try!

[acropolite]

Ken you can simply change the screen font size as well as the icon size at higher resolutions and still have a readable display but with the advantages of higher resolution for image work etc..:D

[fringe_dweller]

I'm definitely NO expert! just a user of them, but! CRT's rule for a few reasons to me - number one is they have many true/native resolutions - wereas TFT's (thats what my young jedi friends call LCD's :P) have only one true optimum/native resolution and if your video card cant handle your new 20inch lcd's true/native resolution 1600x1200, you have three options, 1/ upgrade your video card to probably at least 256meg/decent mhz 2/ reduce the resolution on the screen , which is just doubling up on pixels to achieve this EDIT: ie Blocky, - which is just dumb and a rip off (unlike a CRT which retains true pixel size) 3/ reduce the overall size and have a/varying black borders (which defeats having the new 20" monitor a bit) I find it so boring all those 17" ect with the one standard 1280x1024 native resolution (i'm on a mac which has some weird and funky res's sometimes incidently lol) I am impressed with LCD's for all the obvious reasons mentioned, no cancer, size ect., but totally unimpressed with the colours, i think colours are still MUCH better on a CRT personally, not that many people would be as fussy as me?. And sadly recently i went to upgrade to a mitsubishi 19" diamondtron true flat screen (the only brand/model CRT i want - worth getting) - and they are discontinued!! :( - they still make the cheaper CRT's tho. This is very sad news for CRT lovers - you are now forced to go tft - not happy Jan! Since they got the refresh rate/Hz equivilant to 8ms and 16ms on the LCD's, all the gamers and video people are happy, and demand dropped for the highend CRT's i guess - classy large CRT's RIP! not to mention it has turned getter a bigger screen for me from 500 dollar solution to a 1500 dollar solution (with new video card) for the same quality/size aarrggghh!
My 6 year old mitsi diamondtron 17" (phosphors are going of course) I use at 1024x768 85 Hz
Cheers
Kearn

[ballaratdragons]

Thanks Phil. Someone else said that too (Mike I think).

Don't tell me how to do it yet as I will probably get confused. I will wait till I get my new pooter and try it then. My pooter fix-it man is getting me a new pooter to rent from him cheap. He rents PC's to students and pensioners for about $7 a week. It will have Windows XP (whatever that is) and it will be a 'one point something' Mhz. Mine is only 700.

Can't wait. This pooter has had it's day methinks.

[RAJAH235]

Ken, You won't 'know' yourself. WOW! XP Home! @ 1.? meg! Just joking. Will be heaps faster. XP means 'heaps of extras'. :P :D L.

[ballaratdragons]

Coooooool! I like extras! Especially if it's extra graphics programs :D :wink2:

[MiG]

I'd say your young Jedi friends have the more accurate name. TFT means thin film transistor. It could just as well be a touchpad or a single transistor rather than a display. And not all LCDs use TFT technology.

CRTs do handle multiple resolutions nicely, but they also have a characteristic pixel size due to their dot pitch. IIRC, my IBM badged Sony G520 can accept an input of 1920 x 1440 pixels but it can't accurately display it. Even at 1600x1200 (my normal res), it can't give a clean picture of single pixel width alternating black and white lines. This is at 60 Hz (only for this test, to try and reduce the effect of the video card's output). The video card is a Radeon 9600Pro
This is a monitor that currently costs $1800 (professional series 21" Sony). Cheap monitors like the $600 19" Mitubishi (can't remember model, was a flat screen though) I bought suck compared to this. So my point is, LCDs don't lie (figuratively speaking) to you about their resolutions, especially when fed a digital signal.
As for requiring a 256 MB card to feed a 1600x1200 LCD, well, that's just baloney. From what I've seen, even the modern budget cards can do 1920x1440. My 128 MB 1.5 year old card does 2048 x something (although not digital). Remember, with LCDs you don't need a 85 or 100 Hz ref rate because they don't have the fading between scans.
So, I disagree with point 1, and that makes 2 and 3 moot unless you're playing games (in which the speed penalty of a high resolution can be too high).

I used to constantly bag LCDs, but the aspects I hated (colours, black level, ghosting) are better than they used to be. Their sharpness, size and power usage (my monitor uses up to 130 W) is attractive.
I helped my brother take his SGI badged 21" G500 to a LAN party. It weighs 30 kg. It is not fun.

[fringe_dweller]

"CRTs do handle multiple resolutions nicely, but they also have a characteristic pixel size due to their dot pitch. IIRC, my IBM badged Sony G520 can accept an input of 1920 x 1440 pixels but it can't accurately display it.
Even at 1600x1200 (my normal res), it can't give a clean picture of single pixel width alternating black and white lines. This is at 60 Hz (only for this test, to try and reduce the effect of the video card's output). The video card is a Radeon 9600Pro
This is a monitor that currently costs $1800 (professional series 21" Sony). Cheap monitors like the $600 19" Mitubishi (can't remember model, was a flat screen though) I bought suck compared to this. So my point is, LCDs don't lie (figuratively speaking) to you about their resolutions, especially when fed a digital signal."
_
Hi MiG - i did preface my rant with my admittance to my very average knowledge of computers ect. :) I knew there were some experts lurking around the place :-) thanks for the info/help :) but...

Those "cheap" $600 top of the range in mitsi 19" full flat screen monitors you mention were a mere $1200 not that long ago (and its not like they went down in quality) I could get them wholesale so thats why i said $500. I was always well aware of the high end Sony's in particular - but i have never actually met many (only one) computer users (and I know a few that have owned things like 7000 dollar laptops ect.) that owned one for home, they reckon it was just over the top to get for personal use only. The "cheap" mitsi crt monitors range used the same top of range mitsi tubes that apple used in their imacs and badged and matched "apple display" with all their towers for years and years, until they were fazed out a year or more so ago in favour of over priced , but nice LCD displays (they are still in the emacs i think). These are the set ups that were the staple of the world wide graphics industry, they thought they were decent enough monitor range??! That is the first time i have heard anyone call badged apple mac stuff cheap! lol If you think that is a cheap and nasty monitor I would hate to think how you describe the many much cheaper and nastier crt monitors I have seen around the place!! ie complete fishbowls ect.!!
-
"As for requiring a 256 MB card to feed a 1600x1200 LCD, well, that's just baloney. From what I've seen, even the modern budget cards can do 1920x1440. My 128 MB 1.5 year old card does 2048 x something (although not digital)."

well unfortunately my present G5 mac only came with a Geforce FX 5200 64meg video card, and yes I want to keep playing (new) games, i would of been happy on only 1280X1024 on the 19 crt - but if i have go up, i want go for as good as possible - as for going for 128meg card - I think i might as well go a bit further if i am going to go to all that trouble for not a lot more, and be done with it. And remember mac dont have as wide a range of agp video cards that are available to PC users. In fact my old very early model G3 b&w tower only ever had one compatible agp video card ever made for it (ati rage 32meg ouch!! - but back then 6 years ago that was the equivalant of 64meg video in a pc)!! Not long after that model and up to the present, the situation improved a LOT!, Thats crazy i know - but i have my reasons for using mac. But my present problem with monitors really isnt because i am mac user, so thats beside the point. And not all games top resolutions are the same and matching as you know - you do have to resize for some and then you get the problem with shrinkage with borders with lcd. blah blah we could go on :)



"Remember, with LCDs you don't need a 85 or 100 Hz ref rate because they don't have the fading between scans.
So, I disagree with point 1, and that makes 2 and 3 moot unless you're playing games (in which the speed penalty of a high resolution can be too high).

I used to constantly bag LCDs, but the aspects I hated (colours, black level, ghosting) are better than they used to be. Their sharpness, size and power usage (my monitor uses up to 130 W) is attractive.
I helped my brother take his SGI badged 21" G500 to a LAN party. It weighs 30 kg. It is not fun.[/QUOTE]

Cheers
Fringey

[acropolite]

I'm with you Mig. I've just converted to an LCD monitor with 1280x1024 native resolution. My video is nothing special, on board Intel graphics and the image is that sharp you could cut paper with it and more readable than my old Philips CRT was at 1024x768