What is your main monitor's resolution? Take our poll inside!
Post a Comment
I know, there is a bug with the poll engine that we outsource. I am investigating.
My monitor is capable of 1920x1440, but my video card is usually set to 1400x1050. Should the pole be labeled "What resolution do you use?"
Same here... But I'll drop my comment anyway.
I prefer to use 1024x768. This has to do with the fact that a) my iBook doesn't support any higher and b) because my other 2 monitors can't go much higher either.
I have a 17" crt on one of my x86's, but it only does 1280x1024 at 60hz-- and 60hz is a one way trip to hell for your eyes. So that monitor stays at 1024x768 at 85hz. My Bebox86 uses my superb almost-flatscreen 15" crt, also at 1024x768.
Yes, I prefer my 15" crt over my 17" crt. That 17" crt is less flat than a football so it's a pain to use, really. That's why that one is on my *nix box while the good monitor is on the Bebox86 and my SPARC machine.
And in the end, I also simply prefer 1024x768. Does the job for me 
.
I have lots of monitors here, but I mostly use my Sony 21", at 1600x1200.
My monitor can't go higher than 1280x1024 at a visible refresh rate. Someday, when I have $200 to blow on a nice new 19" Viewsonic I'll be running 1600x1200 or 1900xsomething.
I run 2 19" Sun tubes at 1280x1024, so that makes 2560x1024, right?
I run 2 19" Sun tubes at 1280x1024, so that makes 2560x1024, right?
Meh, according to my TI-83 it makes 2560x2048 
Because unlike 1600x1200, it doesn't screw up my radio reception.
At 19" CRT, you don't want to go more than 1280x1024 at 85 Hz. Most good 19" CRTs will do 1600x1200, but at 75 Hz, and your eyes will hurt. If you want 1600x1200 get a good 21" CRT or a 20" LCD.
Strange.. 1280x1024 is there, but not 1280x960 which is a correct 4:3 resolution. I know it's more common, but I have really not understood where 1280x1024 came from.. Anyone here knows?
-- Vecchio
That's not a missing option. It's a *very rare* resolution. 512x384 too. 
Actually he was right . 1024 is the height and, even with two monitors, the height is still 1024.
My favorite reso 1280x960@19"CRT is missing, on LCD my fav is 1600x1200 (or even 1920x1080 when i can afford maybe soon
people, please don't get on my nerves, each time we have a poll many will start crying "this or that is missing". No, they are not missing. Only the most popular options will get displayed. The rest, are under the "other" option.
Don't want to spoil anyone's party, but what's the point of this poll? Isn't it easier to simply take a look at the site's resolution stats and publish them (along with OS and browser stats). That, IMHO, would be far more relevant and interesting.
I have a very strong aversion to using CRTs. While they still have superior contrast, brightness and a better pixel reaction time than LCDs, I find the idea of staring at a "subtractive flashlight" easier on the eyes than a "phosphoresant cathode ray tube".
For some reason I find myself going back to 1024 x 768 no matter what my hardware supports. Can any one suggest a scientific reason why my eyes prefer this? It may be because of font and icon size. Smaller than 1024 x 768 Desktop defaults just make everything too small. Rather than increase the text size I just go with my favorite resolution.
The stats of our external statistics site only lists 5-6 common resolutions. I wanted a better breakdown. Besides, polls are fun.
>Can any one suggest a scientific reason why my eyes prefer this?
You are simply accustom to this. You are used to it. If your monitor is a 17" and it can do 1152x864 on 80 Hz or above, go with it. If you have a 19", go for 1280x1024. Just make sure that you never go below 80 Hz (on CRTs).
1400x1050 on my Thinkpad - i looks so crisp and clean - "14.1"
1280x1024 on my desktop -18"
the smaller screen has righer resolution is okay
since if u are using a laptop u care usually sit closer to the screen
My resolution is 38x111, and I can't vote without JavaScript.
Come on. This is osnews.
Workstation at home office: 1280x1024 on a brilliant Philips 17" TFT.
Laptop: 1024x768 (12" built-in TFT) and 1024x768 (15" crappy TFT at my biggest customer).
It seems that 17" TFTs are catching on (as of now, 1280x1024 is the most popular option). One thing is interesting about how the additional space (compared to 1024x768, which used to be the most popular resolution) is used.
The few people I have watched at their computer with a high res, as well as myself, tend to not fullscreen their apps anymore with 1280x1024, whereas on 1024x768 apps almost always run fullscreen.
Is your webbrowser fullscreen right now?
When I was younger I would have given my right arm for a very high resolution display, but now I just want 1280x1024. Any higher and eventually I get eye strain looking at the undersized components on the desktop; any lower and I find things aesthetically uncomfortable.
>Is your webbrowser fullscreen right now?
No. I always have my two most used apps open at 800x1150 (my monitor uses 1600x1200). On the left, I have my mail client and on the right, Firefox. Most sites are designed for 800x600 so I don't miss much, and so it's like having two monitors, on one.
Indeed, since going to a 22" head, I've rarely used apps fullscreen. The only thing I always do full screen is spreadsheets.
You can never have a big enough monitor for spreadsheets. And Excel needs more rows and columns!!
I would like an LCD monitor that is 17", but with more pixels than a standard 17" and then be able to run at the equivalent of 1024x768 and produce nice smooth lines. 1280x1024 on a 17" is just too high for me. But being that MacOS X is supposed to be pdf oriented then it should be able to make it nice and smooth there without that evil dithering that the emulation of other modes does.
Main rig is a pc with 19" crt and it is 1280x1024, but I also have
ibook at 1024x768
mac mini on 21" crt at 1280x1024
dell xps laptop at 1920x1200
I like 1280x1024 on both a 19" and a 21" crt.
I've got four computers. The one I use the most is a G3 Mac Blue & White tower at work with a resolution of 1152 x 870 (that isn't a type) on my 19" monitor.
>Is your webbrowser fullscreen right now?
Yes, 1280x1024 but I always browse fullscreen
from the Other category:
Work: 3 displays - all 1024x768 - 2 crt and 1 laptop(using synergy to access)
Main home system: 3 displays, 2 @ 1280x1024 and 1 @ 1800x1440, the 2 are 17" generic crt and the other is a 21" Sony Trinitron
I can never have too much desktop space - NEVER!
I also run a x-terminal off the main home system with a 19" at 1024x768, mainly because I can.
PARSEC, my main workstation has 2 x 19" LCD's, each running at 1280x1024, for a combined desktop resolution of 2560x1024. Once you go dual head, you won't want to go back (unless you can afford the very expensive large widescreen displays).
Happily, the TwinView option for my nVidia card on Linux is very easy to setup and use, it works great.
from 40x24 character mode on a black and white TV to 3200x1600 on 24" LCDs, and they all suck.
I read somewhere that 1280 x 1024 resolution came about because at that resolution and a certain color depth, it was close to a convenient framebuffer memory size. Like how 1280 * 1024 * 24 = 31,457,280 bits to store for the screen, or about 32 megabytes. It also mentioned that the monitors made for these resolutions weren't 4:3 aspect ratio, but the correct 5:4.
I forget the exact numbers, though.
I checked 1600x1200, but it's actually 1200x1600 (portrait mode) - landscape mode is create for movies and games, but I'll never _work_ in anything other than portrait mode again!
My Inspiron 510m has a SXGA LCD, I run it at 1400x1050 and it is soo clear. Anyone going to buy a laptop with a 15" should take a look at SXGA, it is really worth the money.
At work I run two Eizo 15" LCDs, really nice to have more than one program visible at a time
At 1440x900, but all the rest at 1280x1024.
I find it very comforting when people drop by my cube and say "how can you read that thing!" ;-)
Now, I wonder how these results matchup with the stats generated by javascript.
It also mentioned that the monitors made for these resolutions weren't 4:3 aspect ratio, but the correct 5:4.
Why is 5:4 aspect ratio correct when compared to 4:3 ?
Most of the common resolutions are 4:3... atleast below 1024x768.
My resolution is 1280x960 @ 60Hz in a 17" Samsung CRT while in Linux. My eyes don't go to hell at the 60Hz refresh rate. I need the extra space for all the nice dockapps when I am running on my Windowmaker desktop. Console resolution is much less. It is Debian's default framebuffer resolution.
Windows default is 1024x768 @ 85Hz but it is usually lower because most games run at 800x600 or 640x480 in my system.
'ello,
Just thought I'd share this with you; I use 1024x768 as my X windows desktop size, but take advantage of the viewports system to zoom in to 512x348. Why do I waste the accuracy of modern technlogy on this pitiful resolution, I hear you cry! The resaon is that I'm vision impaired and this feature of X allows me to use the computer effectively.
On Windows, I'd have to pay about £400 for a "Screen Magnifier" program. Unfortunately, as well as the cost, they tend to de-stabilise the system a lot, too.
Anyway, I didn't see 512x384 in the poll so I put 1024x768 :-). Keep up the good work on OSNews, Eugenia!
bye just now,
--
Matthew
...but I didn't see an option for 3200x1200. Nothing like screen real estate.
I have 6 computers here. One is running headless but would show 80x25 text, one is actually showing 80x25 text, one in 800x600, one in 1024x786, one in 1280x1024 and my main box runs 1600x1200.
I'll just motivate the choice on my main box: real estate baby!! I'm running Mac OS X and Linux on this. While I tend to use my apps in fullscreen mode, I just love the extra space I get from 1600x1200. When I first got a PC it maxed out at 640x480x16, which was sufficient. However as my screens got bigger and better, I started developing a habit of filling up the screen anyway no matter how big it is. Now that I think of it, I see the same pattern with my disks.. I started out with a 40MB. harddisk and currently have a grand total of almost 2 Terabytes available to me in some form which I also manage to fill with relative ease.
I was very surprised when, at my previous job, my colleagues had 21" CRT's which they ran in 1024x768. I always had it up to 1600x1200. To me 1024x768 on a 21" seems wasteful. I don't need those huge pixels.
Currently saving up for a 30" display from Apple.. :-)) The screen is the window into my PC. I always get the best I can possibly afford.
I was suprised not to see 1280x800. that's what my laptop is running. i was under the impression most 13" widescreen laptops ran that...
For your convenience:
[.]
You have to look kinda close...
I run my laptop at 1600x1200. It's a 15" UXGA screen. I'll probably be blind in a couple years. I think my Vic20 runs at 130x80 or something.
I didn't mean that a 5:4 aspect ratio was inherently better than a 4:3 aspect ratio. I meant that the physical object, the chunk of glass in a monitor, is made at a 4:3 aspect ratio, probably. Using a resolution that is not the same ratio as the display device means either black bars or a distorted image. Using a 5:4 monitor with 1280 x 1024 means you can still have circular circles. The distortion isn't that big, but for some uses it could matter.
I never use fullscreen apps, except for watching movies or playing games. For other applications, full screen is an ugly hack to work around the essential problem, which is bloated UI. IMO, multitasking with GUI only works "right" when windows are actual windows. Windows Explorer for example has a horribly bloated interface, and this is bad for drag-n-drop.
I like the BeOS style of window management, with only a "close" and a "fit" button, the latter will enlarge the window to the size where no scrollbars are needed in the application (You can minize windows by double-clicking their tabs).
I would tell my customers to spend the most money on a monitor instead of anything else. It's the one piece of equipment you have to stare at so make it look good. Too often I've ran into people who spend huge piles of cash on the biggest and baddest yet if you go about a 1/3 of the way down the technology curve, the price point is such that your computer will run almost everything out there smoothly, but you will save $500-1500 dollars, which I recommend spending on the monitor instead.
This is a sales secret btw. Highend monitors are not commodity products unlike most common computer hardware. It's possible to actually make a decent profit of highend monitors. At one point, I was making anywhere from $400-800 dollars a month in monitor sales commissions (this was in a modest store too).
I run dual Sony 24" trinitrons, both have a input switch so I have 2 boxes hooked up to both monitors. Both are proffesional grade and both absolutely worth it. 2048x1536@85hrz. Each were over $3000 new, but have come down in price. They were worth it. I've upgraded my computers a couple of times now but I always have these beautiful monitors to look at.
Remember, spend your money on a kickass monitor and not a bleeding edge processor. The monitor is worth the sacrafice.
320*200 - plenty for most things :o)
Allright, that's just a joke, but back in the day I really did have a lot of fun with games at that or even lower resolution.
>> Strange.. 1280x1024 is there, but not 1280x96
> That's not a missing option. It's a *very rare* resolution.
Huh? 1280x960 is basically the default on 19" CRT screens. The Non-4:3 resolution of 1280x1024 is only used on TFTs.
Isn't it possible to have 800X600 withut distortion, in your case? I know that you might find it unhonorable to have such a low resolution, but my vision is pretty bad, so if I found a laptop that can do 800X600 without distortion, I wold be really happy. What laptop is that?
I typically use a laptop at 1024x768, or a desktop with 1600x1200 resolution on a 21" monitor. One person mentioned that you could never have too much resolution for spreadsheets. The same applies to editing photographs. I scan negatives, and use a six megapixel camera. Nothing beats a big CRT for that kind of stuff.
"The Non-4:3 resolution of 1280x1024 is only used on TFTs."
I've 2 19" CRT here and they both have that resolution in single and dual head configurations (Matrox Millenium 650 Dual Head)...
832x624 (can't change to other)
Macintosh 16" color display (made in 1991-94)
(voted other)
I am running my 19" Samsung 955DF at 1600x1200 at 60Hz. Best monitor I've ever owned. Why does everyone say that 60Hz is bad for the eyes? I have never noticed a difference myself.
How about a 4:3 resolution with 1280px width?
I saw 1280x1024 (5:4, normally for LCDs)... But you don't have our 1280x960 resolution for CRTs...
Yes, I know many use 1280x1024 as their resolution with a CRT, but that distorts pictures... Draw a circle in paint in 1024x768, and see that circle in 1280x1024... You'll notice
I've 2 19" CRT here and they both have [1280x1024] in single and dual head configurations (Matrox Millenium 650 Dual Head)...
Yes, and along with everyone else running that resolution on CRT's, you are squishing everything on your screen vertically. If you draw a circle, it will appear squished. Your fonts will be slightly flattened and appear wider than they should. I realize that many people don't notice the difference, but it will contribute to eyestrain even for them. Not to mention... why in the world would you do this? If somebody built a monitor that artificially squished everything on the screen, would you buy it? Then why turn your perfectly good monitors into one of those! 1280 x 1024 is just plain incorrect on a 4:3 monitor such as modern CRT's, and the only reason to run in it is ignorance.
Hey, welcome to the land of coneheads!
:)
using an LCD at work at the moment, gotta use the native so that's 1280x1024. on any crt I tend to use the highest res that I can do at 85Hz, so that's 1024x768 on the 17" at work (usually) and 1152x864 on my 17" at home, though sometimes I run that at 1024x768@100Hz if my eyes are sore.
I have to agree with some of the comments that a few of the resolutions in the poll are... odd.
is 1280x854 a widescreen res? I've never seen it on any system I've encountered
1024x768 on a nice LG T710BH flatscreen 17" CRT.
And curse OS designers for the odd belief exhibited by many here that resolution equals real estate. Not on a properly configured system, it doesn't. HDTVs have eight or more times the resolution of standard TVs. Does that mean you get a much bigger picture but everything in it is tiny? Er, no. It means you see more detail. That's what computer displays are _supposed_ to be like. Contrary to popular belief, there _is_ a single canonical phsyical size that, say, a 12 point letter 'a' ought to be. Its size is not _supposed_ to vary when you change the resolution of your monitor. When you raise the resolution, the operating system ought to properly adjust its rendering so that everything is the same size but rendered in more detail. Thus the only thing that determines 'real estate' ought to be the physical size of the monitor.
You can do this today on Windows XP and modern Linux distros, and I expect on OS X as well. Measure your monitor, divide the size into the resolution you use, and figure out the correct DPI value for your monitor and resolution combination. Now put that DPI value into the operating system, and everything (or _most_ things, unfortunately no-one adjusts everything yet, new rendering technologies ought to fix this) will be the size it's really really supposed to be. Change your resolution, change your DPI. On a 15" monitor properly configured you should see exactly as much of a web page at 1024x768 as you do at 640x480, it'll just look a heck of a lot nicer.
(end of rant)
I use 1280x960 because it meet the 4:3 VGA standard.
I just tried it at 800x600. I'm not sure what you mean by distortion. The fonts were huge and looked kindof funky because of the anti-aliasing, but I guess you could adjust it. Of course you could run at 1280x1024 or something and just make the fonts bigger. That might look better.
I got my laptop at http://www.pctorque.com. They sell desktop replacements (Sager is the OEM).
If you take your kcalc and check the ratio you will notice that 640*480,800*600,1024*768 (ratio is 1,3.) is not followed by 1280*1024 (r=1,25) but 1280*960(r=1,3), since this is the resoltion that has no distortion, that's why I am curious why this mode is not an option in the vote.
dont see it in my display properties on windows xp. it goes
1024x768
1152x864
1280x768
1280x1024
I already replied to this, don't make mod down your comment. The resolution you mention is the correct 4:3 res, but very-very fre people use it. Only popular res make it to the poll.
I'm using true 4:3 as in 1200x900, it's just the perfect resolution for me. Being limited to the given answers shows the misconception of CRTs and what they are capable of...
It seems to be related to the dpi of the displayed image in my case. I usually run 1024x768 on 17" displays, but I have a 19" I set to 1152x864. If I did any higher resolution, I would enable large icons and crank up the font siez. My eyesight is poor, so that's the reason for that. In fact if you held very still I wouldn't see you at all. That's due more to my psychology as my eyesite
I just temporarily maxed out my SONY 21" E540 monitor (my husband's birthday present two years ago to 2048x1536 (65 Hz) with a well-standing Matrox G400-MAX 32 MB AGP on my dual Celeron 2x533 Mhz. Wow, cool! Everything is so small and trembling of course, but it's cool.
My Mac at work has two LCDs: Apple 20" at 1680x1050, and a Dell 19" at 1280x1024. I use the Apple monito for most stuff, with my iChat windows, Safari's downloads list, and occasionally some other stuff on the Dell.
I'm running two 21" crt's each running at 1600x1200. Both of them have two inputs that are switchable on the front-side, so I actually have 3 computers hooked up to them: a Sun Ultra-1, a small pc acting as a server, and my regular workstation pc in dual-screen mode. It took some wiring to get the mice and keyboards connected properly but it works well. Whatever resolution or monitor size you run, dual-screen is really something worth looking at!
Using 1024x768 on 100Hz, although CRT also supports higher resolutions on 85Hz, I'm able to see the difference, don't know why, perhaps it's the food
Using an old 15" Sampo CRT with an 8MB SiS card on my FC3 box.
1024x768@85Hz looks pretty good on the 17" Samsung SyncMaster on the Windows XP machine, but I'm not the primary user.
Workspaces One through Four I have running at 1024 by 768, and each with its own background image, icon label background colour etc. Workspace Five I keep at 800 by 600, simply because I have a couple of favourite games which need to be "bigger".
What? Can't you guys do that?
Well, BeOS may be a backwater, but it's little details like this which make it such a pleasant backwater :-)
2048x768, soon to be 2560x1024, I hope. At home it's just one monitor, 1152x864.
My apps are rarely maximized, except for with one website that is too large.
My CTX 19" is capable of 1600x1200 at 75 Hz, but is more comfortable to use at 1280x1024 at 85 Hz.
I just had to voice my opinion about 1280x960 not being on the list. That list is very long, it isn't like it was kept brief to 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200. There are 15 options (sans Other). The highest rez 3 and 640x480 haven't even gotten 1% of the votes. I run 1280x960 (perfect circles, not ovals), and just had to bark.
Dual monitor goodness, at ungodly resolutions, on a dual G5! You can't argue with that! 8)=
Seriously, I've always felt that I wanted the higherst resolution I possibly can get... 99% of the time I'm in 2-D, so speed/resolution issues aren't a concern, as they are when running 3-D apps in higher resolutions.
And though I increase my font sizes quite a bit, I still get more screen real estate, plus curved edges, and anti aliasing looks SO much smoother on higher resolution displays.
Interestingly enough, I'm running an ATI 9600 in my Mac, and in the PC that sits on the other side of my desk. Both handle this resolution equally well under Windows, and the Mac. Linux is another story though....
On my older, and currently unused PC, I was able to run two monitors, using the xinerama extension, and two different video cards. The only distro that's managed to run KDE w/the xinerama extension on my current PC (again, with a 9600) is Yoper, and that was after a lotta tweaking. All other distro's could only handle both monitors w/out xinerama.
Needless to say, Yoper takes backseat to XP on my PC for this reason, while the PC overall takes a backseat to my Mac.
If you have large monitors (I'm running two Nokia 21" 445XPro's, which have a .22 dpi, which results in incredible crispness and clarity at said resolutions), and a capable video card, try boosting your resolution and font sizes a bit. You won't regret it!
And if you're running multiple boxes like I am, another benefit is that you can control one box from the other using either VNC, or Remote Desktop (Windows only). Imagine how productive you can be on a dual monitor Mac, while running a remote Windows session at 1600x1200 in a window! Neat stuff!!
I'm at work now, so it's 1024x768@85Hz on a 17" CRT, running on WinXP Pro. At home, it's 1152x864@85Hz on a 17" flat-CRT in Linux, and 1024x768@85Hz in BeOS 5.0.3 Pro on the same monitor (because of the small fonts). When I'm away from home and work, it's 480x320 on my Clie PDA, or sometimes even 101x80 on my cellphone.
I'm running a 17" LCD at 1280x1024. This gives me a sqrt(1280^2 + 1024^2) / 17 = 96 DPI. The timings are 108.00 1280 1328 1440 1688 1024 1025 1028 1066. It has a brightness of 250 cd/m2 and contrast ratio of 300:1. The response time is 50ms and viewing angles 120° horizontal and 100° vertical. The settings are as follows:
Contrast = 35
Brightness = 45
Focus = 39
Clock = 30
H. Position = 49
V. Position = 47
Red adjustment = 24
Green adjustment = 53
Blue adjustment = 30
I also have a 30" TV running at 720x480@60Hz. This gives me a resolution of sqrt(720^2 + 480^2) / 30 = 28 DPI. The tint is set to 30%, brightness 50%, and color to 40%. The volume is set to 30%.
well, i've had several 19"s that supported 1280x1024 beautifully as well as 1600x1200 if i pushed it. Problem is they've all croaked. Only one that keeps working is my trusty 17"...they just don't make em like they used to. 1024x768, 85 hz.
> I'm using true 4:3 as in 1200x900, it's just the perfect
> resolution for me. Being limited to the given answers
> shows the misconception of CRTs and what they are
> capable of...
Cool, I'm not the only one running 1200x900. It's just perfect for me, since it's the maximum resolution that my 19" CRT can do at 100 Hz :-)
For those interested in custom modelines:
http://www.sh.nu/nvidia/gtf.php
http://koala.ilog.fr/cgi-bin/nph-colas-modelines
Enjoy!
I run 1600x1200 at home, work and on my IBM A31p laptop. I am able to run 2048x1536 at home and on my laptop via an external monitor. I don't like big buttons and window decorations, especially XP. After running 1600x1200 for so long, I can't imagine running anything less.
it seems some lcds are using another aspect ratio, and i guess that's what 1280x1024 came from..
1280 x 1024 is too unbearable to read on screen on my 19" FLATRON 915FT Plus monitor.
And 1024 x 768 is too big.
BeOS multi-res here too for the games...er, web design testing. (And RDC...but that's just a different colour resolution.)
Kev
I'm amazed at people that prefer LCDs running at non-native resolution. While I was working for my school we eventually started switching over much of the faculty and staff over to 17" LCD screens. However I was instructed to always set the display up at 1024x768. (With 17" CRTs they kept it at 800x600 tops!) Most of the faculty prefered this too. It drove me mad and whenever I worked the help desk I participated in a game of tug o' war to keep the monitor's resolution while I was there at least, native. The bluriness and tolerance is just mind boggling to me.
I voted other since I use 1024x1280 (yes, that's the right order!). My monitor is always set in a vertical mode, since that best fits the way I work.
At the moment, the monitor is linux fb 800x600 terminal. No X on the servers, but we get to use the framebuffer console for more characters.
At home, a great iiyama 24" at 1280x1024.
No java on lynx, so I can't see the poll.
If you posted this poll for research (possible OSNews redesign? ) have a look here http://www.pageresource.com/jscript/jscreen.htm (just in case you don't know). I would also like to know what "tech people" use for a res.
mines 1024x768-32@78 but its only because my monitor is broken and gets wavey if i turn the resolution any higher
the reason your eyes rather lower resolutions is that the image have thicker lines, and since you brain and eyes are lazy (see Gestalt to fully understand that) it's more confortable.
Besides, it provides higher refresh rates. At 60Hz, the Tube image oscilates in the same pace as the eletric grid, wich consequently is the same rate of the eletrical lamp. so this will realy bother some parts of your brain. The fluorescent lamp has a 'random' oscilation as far as i can remember.
I'm a worst case. I must use more than 100hz or i go nuts.
My nvidia drive chooses it at boot time so i don't have to bother with it
it's completely random. Sometimes it boots up at 1024x760 and sometimes at 800x600
There are things that only nvidia can do for you!
agreed, its impossible to go back
I run both my Dell 2001FPs at 1600x1200, and very pleased with them I am too.
... However, since my machine has four DVI ports I'm going to see if I can go nuts, and maybe put a third monitor in there
Home: Apple Cinema LCD 24" 1920*1200
Work: Sun 21" Trinitron 1280*1024
When I could come up with three different answers on one computer under one OS. The 17" on the right runs 1280x960 (radeon 9500 Pro port 2) (I like to stay aspect correct... off aspect drives me buggers), the 19" in the middle (Radeon 9500 Pro port 1) runs 1600x1200, while the old 15" on the left is at 1024x768 (el-cheapo S3 Virge PCI). Windows XP set to large fonts of course... With cleartype enabled even though they are CRT's since they are all 'generic' enough to have straight RGB masks instead of the more exotics you get from the likes of Sony.
I've always run the upper limit resolutions my monitors could do since the windows 3.x days with Large Fonts (or as they called them back then, 8514) enabled. Jaggies on fonts drive me nuts.
Oddly fonts, resolutions and multi-monitor support are perhaps my biggest complaints in terms of Operating systems. I am still amazed at how outright primitive font rendering in linux is - even with anti-aliasing they STILL can't get anything to kern properly in a consistant manner, something both Windows and MacOS have done well since 1991 without so called "font smoothing". Mac Font rendering is not exactly stunning either, although they've made great strides of late... At least their multi-monitor support works WELL, being one of the first readily available systems to support it... I was jumping for joy when they added support for doing it to Windows 98.
You want to talk headache, try doing multi-monitor under linux - it STILL doesn't do it well, half the time if you log out or change to a full screen text terminal, it screwing up the frame buffer on one screen to the point you need a reboot to fix it... Much less (god forbid) you want to operate your two monitors at different resolutions, something X has always choked on the notion of. I'd love to be able to run all three differing resolutions under linux on all three monitors - Only way I've found that works is to run three separate instances of X, resulting in zero interoperability between the desktops... COMPLETELY DEFEATING the entire reason to do it... and that's assuming you can even GET multi-monitor working and that the drivers for your cards actually specify the monitor YOU WANT as the primary to BE the primary.
Not to beat on linux too hard, but in terms of font rendering and monitor support it STILL hasn't caught up to Windows 3.1 in terms of functionality.
ESPECIALLY monitors... Anyone who has sat there dicking with monitor configuration strings in /etc/xll/XF86Config can attest to that.
that's funny, I'm reading your post on my dual monitor setup (one monitor at 1024x768, one TV screen at 800x600) and looking at nicely kerned fonts. I could switch to a vconsole and back if I felt inclined to, no reboots necessary. When was the last time your tried Linux, 1993?
Main: 1600x1200
Left: 1280x1024 LCD
Right: 1024x768 old crap CRT - for testing how the rest of the world see things...
Here's another vote for 1280x960 on a 19" CRT. For graphic design work it's important to see the correct proportions.
With 1280x1024, squares aren't square on the screen. (Plus it makes people look fatter.)
two servers, two workstations, one monitor
22" ViewSonic CRT: 1280x1024x85hertz, XP,LinSpire, Xandros,WIN2K
One G5, three monitors
19" ViewSonic LCD: 1280x1024x60, OSX
19" EIZO LCD: 1280x1024x60, OSX
19" EIZO LCD: 1280x1024x60, OSX
ThnkPad: 1400x1050, XP, LinSpire
Related surveys covering additional aspects for Web designers and Mac specialists:
Display and Browser Window Survey
http://www.prismo.ch/surveys/display.php
Macintosh Survey (hardware and software trends of Apple Macintosh users)
http://www.prismo.ch/surveys/mac/survey.php
15" CTX:
- 800x600 in Windows 98SE, because on 1024x768, fonts are too small for me, and the stupid OS doesn't allow me to set bigger font size (when I try to do that, font size remains the same in some places and systray gets screwed).
- 1024x768 in Gnome and KDE on Linux, because both Qt and GTK+ know how to handle fonts properly so that I can set any font size I like ;-)
1280x1024 at home on my 19" CRT Liteon
1024x768 at work with my 17" Compaq monitor.
Both under Enlightenment (mdk 10.0)
Well, I prefer 12" laptops, so can't really be higher My worklap top though has 1400x1050 15" but i'd prefer smaller laptop... this IBM is a freaking brick to carry around to meetings etc, compared to iBook which I have at home...
in case people haven't come across it - the developer tools extension to FireFox is great. it includes a window resize so that you can see the page as if it was on an 800x600, or 1024x768, etc etc
i know plenty of people, all non-techy, who seem to prefer low resolutions for their desktop? they seem to say that "the writing is bigger and easier to read". i guess they haven;t seen the benefots of a large workspace AND a large text sizes,..
people, please don't get on my nerves, each time we have a poll many will start crying "this or that is missing". No, they are not missing. Only the most popular options will get displayed. The rest, are under the "other" option.
Then don't get on our nerves by publishing a screen resolution poll without all common VGA resolutions listed.
1280x800 - listed
1280x854 - listed
1280x960 - Not listed???
You really think 1280x800 or 1280x854 is more commonly used than 1280x960? Think again.
LCD flat screens doesn't deliver better pictures nor a higher resolution.
For me, the only effect LCD screens are doing on the way computers are used is the possibility of turning the screen to a portrait layout. It is of major importance for word processors, book reading, ...
( Well, I know turnable CRT screens have existed, like the Radius Pivot ... )
It's time for Xorg and Xfree86 to address that quickly and seamlessly
If you can turn you monitor into vertical position, try it. The current orientation is good for games but totally stupid for anything else. Web pages are vertical. Not horizontal. If you are coding, your lines should not be 300 char long so it more useful to be able to see more code.
My next monitor will be able to pivot. That's the first feature I'll check.
Am I the only one still using 80x25?
On a 24 inch widescreen sony monitor @75hz.. nice
1400x1050 is the hardware resolution of my laptop.
However I often can't use it as it is too often not supported by software:
- Windows games : any DirectX game seems to not be aware of this resolution, even if I'm using it on the Windows desktop
- liveCD GNU/Linux distributions do not detect it
My graphic card is an ATI Radeon 9000 Mobility. Maybe it is a BIOS or a DirectX driver problem.
I wish I could use this resolution (1024x1280), but it gives me a headache, because the only possible vsync for it on my monitor (17") is 60hz. Not good.
It says I'm the only one... Actually I can do 1024x768@60Hz but 60Hz gives me a headache. Damn CRTs.
Why is it that 1024x768 isn't the same aspect ratio as 1280x1024? Well, note that 1024x768 is the same as all the standard ones, like 640x480, 800x600, etc. I guess 1280x1024 is the odd one, yet it's the one I like the most for my screen size (15" notebook LCD). At any rate, it makes no sense to me why they do this because the screen will be skewed. Any thoughts?
I use 2560x1024 but because it's not on the list I choose 2048x1536. "Other" is no option in a poll, it's a lame excuse.
It's not entirely a rare resolution...
Anyway, I refuse to use a non-4:3 resolution, so I run 1280x960 on my 17" CRT.
I have 2 LCD monitors a Dell and Acer and I mostly use 1024x768 becase in the my LCD's my best quality is in this resoloution
1280x960?? How can this be missing as a standard 4/3 resolution
I should be able to vote more than once. :-)
At home: 1280x1024 on my desktop, 1024x768 on my iBook, 1024x768 on my wife's machine.
At work: 1280x1024 on my main system and 1024x768 on my QNX target.
- chrish
19" LCD here running at a native resolution of 1280x1024. I used the same resolution on my previous monitor, a Sun (SONY) 21" CRT, and a 19" NEC-Mitsubishi before that.
...and another vote for 1280x960 on my 19" CRTs. The next 4:3 step is 1600x1200 which is a nice resolution but unfortunately way too blurry and flickery (75 Hz max).
Well, 1680x1050 is native resolution on my LCD, so that is what I run 90% of the time. I admit if I play HL2 I usually run at 1280x800 or so due to my video card, though.
My CRT can goes up to 1600x1200 but the desktop fonts looks ugly at this size: too small by default which is weird: fonts measured in points shouln't change in size when resolution changes and if I scale them up, they are ugly.
PDF looks nice at 1600x1200 though! Too bad I can't use this resolution so 1280x960 for me.
Color computer II
but seriously.. for my laptop, its 1024 x 768
1024x768 because for some odd reason I can't go 1 lower which I like I can go 2 lower which is strange, can get v2 lower but not 1?? SuSE 8.1 home does not support my new card.
@ 85 Hz, 22" CRT monitor.
I'm glad the randr extension exists.... here's hoping multimonitor support improves on xorg - not to mention support for adding screens/tablets/etc at run time!
1280x1024 CRT w/ Cleartype ON
I can't seem to do the res. w/out Cleartype. My eyes get all fugged up and I have to walk away from the PC in like 20-30min.
My "main monitor" is connected to three PCs via a KVM switch, so it usually runs at 1280x1024, 1280x1024, or 1024x768 depending on the box that I'm switched to at the moment.
...and another vote for 1280x960 on my 19" CRTs. The next 4:3 step is 1600x1200 which is a nice resolution but unfortunately way too blurry and flickery (75 Hz max).
I just switched today on 1360x1024 on my 19" - almost perfect 4:3; 1.32 as opposed to 1.33, because I can't stand non 4:3 resolutions. Before today I thought the next was 1600x1200, glad I checked Oh, and the refresh rate is also fine - 100 Hz, otherwise it'd be still using 1280x1024.
"On Windows, I'd have to pay about £400 for a "Screen Magnifier" program. Unfortunately, as well as the cost, they tend to de-stabilise the system a lot, too."
Why don't you use the bundled Windows zoom program? It's been included since Windows 95.
You can find it in the Accesibility folder in the start menu.
Anyways, as for my resolution: 1280 x 1024 @ 60hz
19" LCDs rule.
1024*768 (12" LCD) on Ibook, 1152*890 (17" CRT) on ancient powermac 7500...
i need a better monitor for my old machine :-)
1152 X 864 @100 Hz 120 DPI default
nVidia's nView - enable multiple Desktops I can switch desktop presets on the fly .
Would be nicer if could choose Hz. first , then be presented
format 2nd (like 4:3 ), then display all possible resolutions instead of....who ever tried all possible combinations ?
Also to keep Font Ratio on every cobo so you won't have to fool w/it.
Some users (non-osnews readers) not even aware they need adjusting refresh rates- or that their PC even has other colors beside the shipped grey default.
Those would be the ones benefitting from a factory optimized (tweaked) system.
Dell had their 2005FPW on sale until yesterday for $567. I was just about to jump on that. Would have been my first LCD. But the resolution - 1680x1050 - is close but not quite what I'd like. My guess is that 1050 was designed as twice the vertical resolution of NTSC e.g. 2x525. But I have a camcorder - in PAL because PAL has more vertical resolution than NTSC. I'll wait a little longer for 1920x1200 to come down.
Anyone using nV Rotate Portrait mode ?
like 864 X 1152 or any - maybe 16:9 Portrait
think LCD's would fare better than CRT's on the rotation ;-)
832x624 is a standard Apple resolution though, under Classic MacOS at least. My old 6100 was only capable of doing this as its max resolution for example.
I use 1400x1050 on my laptop at home and 1024x768 + 1024x768 + 1280x1024 in a 3 screen panorama at work. At my previous job, I had a 4 monitor set-up, with 3 at 1024x768 and one at 1280x1024. How do I justify these monitors? I'm a Delphi coder. My source goes on one screen, my form design goes on the highest res screen and the other screen is used for scratch tasks such as DBMS tools and source control. As Windows doesn't do multiple desktops, this is my compramise!
...and this would generally apply to 17" or 19" monitors.
I use this resolution all of time (home and work) so much that whenever I have to sit in front of either 1024x768 or 1280x1024 it feels really uncomfortable for me.
Well I definately have a standard resolution! 1280x1024, even though it's not a 4:3 ratio. I always wondered that. Everything is slightly stretch at the resolution, not too noticeable but still.
1280x1024 not a 4:3 resolution
By Vecchio (IP: ---.gfa.gbg.bostream.se) - Posted on 2005-03-03 18:54:08
Strange.. 1280x1024 is there, but not 1280x960 which is a correct 4:3 resolution. I know it's more common, but I have really not understood where 1280x1024 came from.. Anyone here knows?
-- Vecchio
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it not 16:9 then???
1920x1200 on my 24" Widescreen Trinitron.
I wonder if anyone still uses the TI portable (luggable)computer with the color screen. It had a non-standard resolution; I believe it was 720x384.
1024x768 at 60Hz. I don't have much of a choice on a laptop LCD. Whenver I compare screenshots of my desktop to others, mine feels rather cramped. 
I use 1280x960@100hz. This res isn't in the options, don't you ppl realise that 1280x1024 isn't square pixel? The only reason it become common is because early video-cards had to have binary number res's.