Desktop Resolution?

[Tweaker]

I am always curious about this one... and it would be interesting to see who uses what. I ask mostly because being a web designer, I try and make a site fit within 800 x 600 resolution, but that resolution is very low in most cases.. so I am wondering if people still use that resolution.

I listed resolutions that don't have the height dimension, but pick your resolution that is closest to the choices.

Or pick other if you don't see what is listed, and post it below.

[Kegetys]

1440x1080 and 1024x768 on my Windows "gaming" system
1152x864 on my Linux desktop
1024x768 on my laptop
176x208 on my mobile phone (I rarely surf web pages with it though :P)

On the Windows system I do not run the browser full screen though, somewhere around 900 pixels wide usually.

[Batterypark]

1400 x 1050 on my 19" CRT and 132 х 176 on my cell phone :)

[deggis]

1024x758 @ 17" CRT. If I had the money I would upgrade to 19" TFT or even CRT. :|

PS. My mom's computer had this legendary 14" IBM monitor (http://mbnet.fi/deg/pics/the_legend.jpg) (with superb 640x480 maximum resolution) in use until I finally dumped it two months ago (and replaced it with a cheap & used 19" monitor). That 14" IBM thing is still in safe our warehouse. :D

[P1lot]

I've got 1280 x 1024 for main, 1024 x 768 for 2nd monitor.

I'm curious about these windscreen monitors, how many people use them? They seem like a gimmick to me, for laptop users wanting to watch DVD's.
They might make sense for LFS since they would give a better field of view, without useless top and bottom portions, I don't know :shrug:
For working on documents, I would prefer a taller monitor to be honest. Maybe I should turn my monitor 90º ? :)

[Bob Smith]

1024. Still got my (third) trusty 17 incher. As soon as I get some money coming in I'm getting a nice big 21" CRT while they're still available.

/me shouts "boo" at TFTs

[Tweaker]

I've got 1280 x 1024 for main, 1024 x 768 for 2nd monitor.

I'm curious about these windscreen monitors, how many people use them? They seem like a gimmick to me, for laptop users wanting to watch DVD's.
They might make sense for LFS since they would give a better field of view, without useless top and bottom portions, I don't know :shrug:
For working on documents, I would prefer a taller monitor to be honest. Maybe I should turn my monitor 90º ? :)

Yeah my friend has a 24" widescreen monitor, and I have to say... that for playing games that don't support the widescreen res, it looks absolutely horrible, everything is stretched. Other than games, the desktop is nice, you have TONS of space (at least this one does because it is so big). But there are some models that can rotate 90 degree and be vertical, my friend can do it, and it is just a feature your video card must have or something. But it is nice.

If you've ever seen the program called Reason, music production software, you have a simulated 'rack' that goes vertically and you always have to scroll. This monitor however, when vertical, allows your music making to be a whole lot more efficient. The resolution he uses is like 1900 x 1600 or something.

[dUmAsS]

dont the gfx drivers just black out part of the screen so it still runs partly in native res?

[XCNuse]

lol my fx5200 supports 90 degree rotations .. thats like the greatest thing about it lol

im surprised people actually run higher than 1600! (lol i didnt even know of anything higher than 1600 besides uneven but.. 1900... thats crazy)

[Bob Smith]

dont the gfx drivers just black out part of the screen so it still runs partly in native res?
I've yet to see a widescreen monitor with black bars. :( At least widescreen tellys have the option (which nobody seems to use.... I can't stop laughing at all the fat people :p)

[clp]

I run 1920x1440 on my primary 21" CRT and 1600x1200 on my secondary 19" CRT :)

since the original post was in relation to web design..

one of my all time pet annoyances is web sites/designers that insist on maximising my browser window.. i mean, seriously, .. do they really think i want to run a browser in a 1920x1440 window? :pillepall

CLP

[Forbin]

Yeah my friend has a 24" widescreen monitor, and I have to say... that for playing games that don't support the widescreen res, it looks absolutely horrible, everything is stretched. Other than games, the desktop is nice, you have TONS of space (at least this one does because it is so big). But there are some models that can rotate 90 degree and be vertical, my friend can do it, and it is just a feature your video card must have or something. But it is nice.
Thanks for the info. I was just looking at a Sony FW-900 (24" widescreen) which just so happens to have a max res that exceeds the capabilities of my video card (GF6800GT) at 2304 x 1440, and at 80 Hz, no less. I'd be forced to run at a "mere" 2048 x 1280 at 85 Hz. And it's available for about $300 USD used but in good condition. The thought of getting a massively stretched image makes me think twice, though...

/me shouts "boo" at TFTs
Amen. :D

I currently run a crappy NEC 17" CRT at 1024x768 @ 85 Hz. I got it for free to replace my dying Sony 21" CRT, a GDM-500PS.

LCD's ruined all the great CRT's out there. And for what? To save a little space... I loves my radiation box.

[Tweaker]

I run 1920x1440 on my primary 21" CRT and 1600x1200 on my secondary 19" CRT :)

since the original post was in relation to web design..

one of my all time pet annoyances is web sites/designers that insist on maximising my browser window.. i mean, seriously, .. do they really think i want to run a browser in a 1920x1440 window? :pillepall

CLP
I don't like that either, it is like my #1 not-to-do rule lol. It especially annoys me when it maximizes and when closing the browser and reopening it at any time, it has the saved maximized window for any site, really annoying.

[SladiVadi]

You shouldn't get a stretched image. If you play a 2D game, then set the correct aspect ratio for resolutions different from 16:10. :)

[Tweaker]

Mrmmm are you talking about the widescreen displays? You DO get a stretched image if the game doesn't support it. And AFAIK, LFS doesn't support it either, just a widescreen 'effect'. To have the game resolution having true widescreen , you'd have to get more visible area on the left and right, but most games don't, they only give you options for 4:3 ratio thus stretching the game's appearance. The desktop however is fine of course.

[SladiVadi]

You're right, at least you can set the image to a correct aspect ratio. :sorry:

[(NOZ)RockyZ]

1280x1024 on my Sony 19inch monitor, it looks pretty decent gamign at 1024x768.

[96 GTS]

I have a 15" TFT on my desktop that's native 1024x768, so that's what I use.
My laptop is also 15" and native 1024x768. I always have my brower maximized, if that helps.

[OPK]

1280x960 on my 19" CRT and 1280x800 on my notie :)

[TagForce]

2048x1536 @ 32b
on 2 19" HP screens. So in total my desktop is 4096x1536.

[nikimere]

who's the '1' who uses 800x ??
lol!!

[JohnMid1098]

1280x960 on both monitors. I could run 1280x1024, but honestly, who wants to work with non-square pixels?

[OPK]

Yeah, same here.

A shame most modern LCD monitors are using 1280x1024 :/

[mrodgers]

Kid's PC running their games needs to be 640x480 @ 256 colors on 15 inch CRT, OUCH.
My home PC running LFS mainly is 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 17 inch CRT.
Office PC for email, data entry, etc 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 19 inch CRT
Working PC used to run Rockwell Software to control equipment is 1280x1024 @ 16 bit on a 21 inch flatscreen CRT.

[ORION]

1280x960 @ 100Hz @ 21" CRT :D
1024x768 @ my notebook (14.1" TFT)

[Pabs(Sco)]

I run 1920x1440 on my primary 21" CRT and 1600x1200 on my secondary 19" CRT :)

since the original post was in relation to web design..

one of my all time pet annoyances is web sites/designers that insist on maximising my browser window.. i mean, seriously, .. do they really think i want to run a browser in a 1920x1440 window? :pillepall

CLP

I agree @ work I have a 19" TFT @ 1280x1024 and I do not run my browser on full screen, but at home running 1024x768 17" CRT I do.

now how can I swap these without my company noticing ....... :P

[Vain]

I use 1280x1024, but I never allow websites to stretch over more than 1024x768. And that ony goes for sites with loads of content where I need the space. And I only do that seldomly. The optimal size for a website displayed on a multitasking system is 800x600.

Vain

[Ziil]

1280x1024 on my 17 inch LCD :)

[Anarchi-H]

1600x1200 when I don't accidentally corrupt my windows partition from typing one wrong number in parted >_<
ATM its 140x50 (think text based) ;)

[geeman1]

Yeah, same here.

A shame most modern LCD monitors are using 1280x1024 :/
That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

[Tweaker]

My 4 year old laptop is a 15" LCD display and reaches 1600 x 1200 that I use all the time. Basically, if you get an LCD display that can't go any higher than that, and at that size, then you didn't pay enough for a good display :)

[vrooom]

I run 1152x864 @ 32bit colour on Free Dell 17" I run web browser maxaimised.

[OPK]

That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

Yeah, but it looks a bit odd in shape compared to my 16:10 notebook screen.
Especially when watching a DVD movie...the screen is jut not "filled" :)

[marsden1002]

1280 X 1024 on my 17" TFT.

[deggis]

Kid's PC running their games needs to be 640x480 @ 256 colors on 15 inch CRT, OUCH.
My home PC running LFS mainly is 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 17 inch CRT.
Office PC for email, data entry, etc 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 19 inch CRT
Working PC used to run Rockwell Software to control equipment is 1280x1024 @ 16 bit on a 21 inch flatscreen CRT.
16 bit? Why?

[ORION]

I dont understand how someone can use 16 bit, I mean ... it looks really ugly and 32 bit has absulutely the same performance.

[Tweaker]

Mmmm, well for medium-performance systems, it can help, but only by a little bit. I noticed a lot of the older Nvidia cards have better performance when running in 16-bit on games, and if you try and use 32-bit... the game will be slower. But ever since I've had an ATI card, 32-bit doesn't make a difference :).

[kevin_vikkerman]

I run my 4 year old 17' Packard Bell monitor at 1152x864x32. In 1024x768 mode everthing is allready to big for me :D . And 1280x960 is no option because its at 60hz, i get major headaches after half an hour :Eyecrazy: Also i run my games at the same resolution so when i hit "quit" or hit a game on my desktop it immediatly jumps back to windows.

[MAGGOT]

I'm running 1024x768 at home, and 1680x1050 on this badboy I'm using at college... Damn this is a nice computer..(Acer Ferrari 4005WLMi)

MAGGOT

[ORION]

Mmmm, well for medium-performance systems, it can help, but only by a little bit. I noticed a lot of the older Nvidia cards have better performance when running in 16-bit on games, and if you try and use 32-bit... the game will be slower. But ever since I've had an ATI card, 32-bit doesn't make a difference :).
Maybe it's true if you use a GeForce 1 LOL (aka GeForce GTX).
Already on a 2 MX with 64MB there is absolutely no difference :)

I remember that my Voodoo Banshee got like 2-3 fps less in Rollcage though ;)

[geeman1]

I have now 3 15" monitors, one of them is TFT others are CRT. So 3x 1024x768 (or 3072x768)for me. Just got these today, now I am trying to learn how to use all this space :)

[Tweaker]

Maybe it's true if you use a GeForce 1 LOL (aka GeForce GTX).
Already on a 2 MX with 64MB there is absolutely no difference :)

I remember that my Voodoo Banshee got like 2-3 fps less in Rollcage though ;)
Well not quite, because I own a GeForce 2 GTS Pro 64mb in my old desktop sitting here (now used for storage) and I remember that when playing games like Halflife and other earlier titles, running in 16-bit would increase your FPS and in return get smoother gameplay, at the cost of nasty looking fades, but oh well. Other games I used to play, like some motorcycle games, which had just come out in the Geforce 3 era, my Geforce 2, as well as my 2 friends who had similar spec systems could not run the game at 32 bit (Motocross Mania was the game I think).

But like I said, now we don't have a problem with it really, new cards can run 32-bit no problems.

[OPK]

Since when did Voodoo cards support more than 16bit?
My Voodoo 3 didn´t.

And I think they implemented this with the Voodoo 4 or 5 :confused:

[Tweaker]

Anyways... thanks for the replies, got more votes than I expected :) But keep voting if you may/can! :)

[kevin_vikkerman]

When 32bit is turned instead of 16bit on on my onboard chip, FPS is cut in half when playing games :D the worst example had to be the old 99' Unreal Tournament, the game was unplayable at 320x200x32, while 1024x768x16 is silky smooth.

[vpr01]

1280x1024 on 17" LCD.

Thats native res for 17" LCD's and looks best. Also spplies to some 19" LCD's, but some are higher.

Native res means that anything below that will be distorted and blocky, since the screen has to emulate that res on its native res - being 1280x1024. Always run LCD's in their native resolution for best results. Sometimes its hard in game cos some peoples graphics cards cant run that high, but if you can afford an LCD, surely you can afford a 6800 or x800 :D

[Tweaker]

1280x1024 on 17" LCD.

Thats native res for 17" LCD's and looks best. Also spplies to some 19" LCD's, but some are higher.

The standard has been bumped up now and is 1600 x 1200 or higher. But like I mentioned before, even my 15" UXGA+ LCD on my laptop has a resolution of 1600 x 1200, and that is its native res according to Dell. When I ordered that screen, it was very expensive.

The native res you get is mostly dependant on the quality of the screen, when they rate it (XGA, UXGA, UXGA+, SXGA, etc)...

[vpr01]

ah, new standard. i usually keep up with these things! you all get my drift though!

[zorrofox]

That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

1280x1024 does not translate to a 5:4 aspect ratio. 1280x960 does though, which is why I use it @ 85Hz on my 19" Hansol CRT monitor.

[SladiVadi]

1280x960 is 4:3 like your CRT. :)

[Rob76]

1280x1024 does not translate to a 5:4 aspect ratio.

4 x 1280 = 1024
5

It may be 7 years since I left uni and started to forget my maths, but I can still work that one out... :)

[OPK]

I think he actually meant 4:3 as it is the standard aspect ratio somehow :D

[Myst]

Native 1280 x 1024 here

[Forbin]

My Sony GDM-FW900 arrives here Tuesday. 24" of CRT goodness. :D

As for stretching in games, I can always manually resize the image to add some black bars to the left and right. I think it'll be alright in most cases, though. I'll post some screenshots. :D