What is your main monitor’s resolution? Take our poll inside!Note: Javascript required to view and vote for the poll.
Poll: What is your Monitor’s Resolution?
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
well, i’ve had several 19″s that supported 1280×1024 beautifully as well as 1600×1200 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. 1024×768, 85 hz.
> I’m using true 4:3 as in 1200×900, 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 1200×900. 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 1600×1200 at home, work and on my IBM A31p laptop. I am able to run 2048×1536 at home and on my laptop via an external monitor. I don’t like big buttons and window decorations, especially XP. After running 1600×1200 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 1280×1024 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 1024×768. (With 17″ CRTs they kept it at 800×600 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 1024×1280 (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 800×600 terminal. No X on the servers, but we get to use the framebuffer console for more characters.
At home, a great iiyama 24″ at 1280×1024.
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 1024×768-32@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 1024×760 and sometimes at 800×600
There are things that only nvidia can do for you!
agreed, its impossible to go back
I run both my Dell 2001FPs at 1600×1200, 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 1280×960 (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 1600×1200, while the old 15″ on the left is at 1024×768 (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 1024×768, one TV screen at 800×600) 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: 1600×1200
Left: 1280×1024 LCD
Right: 1024×768 old crap CRT – for testing how the rest of the world see things…
Here’s another vote for 1280×960 on a 19″ CRT. For graphic design work it’s important to see the correct proportions.
With 1280×1024, 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: 1400×1050, XP, LinSpire
I <3 my Samsung 243T.
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:
– 800×600 in Windows 98SE, because on 1024×768, 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).
– 1024×768 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 😉
1280×1024 at home on my 19″ CRT Liteon
1024×768 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 1400×1050 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…
that the only reasonable resolution on 15″
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 800×600, or 1024×768, 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.
1280×800 – listed
1280×854 – listed
1280×960 – Not listed???
You really think 1280×800 or 1280×854 is more commonly used than 1280×960? 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 80×25?
1280×960 (looks much nicer than 1280×1024)
On a 24 inch widescreen sony monitor @75hz.. nice
1400×1050 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 (1024×1280), 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 1024×768@60Hz but 60Hz gives me a headache. Damn CRTs.
Why is it that 1024×768 isn’t the same aspect ratio as 1280×1024? Well, note that 1024×768 is the same as all the standard ones, like 640×480, 800×600, etc. I guess 1280×1024 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 2560×1024 but because it’s not on the list I choose 2048×1536. “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 1280×960 on my 17″ CRT.
I have 2 LCD monitors a Dell and Acer and I mostly use 1024×768 becase in the my LCD’s my best quality is in this resoloution
1280×960?? How can this be missing as a standard 4/3 resolution
I should be able to vote more than once. 🙂
At home: 1280×1024 on my desktop, 1024×768 on my iBook, 1024×768 on my wife’s machine.
At work: 1280×1024 on my main system and 1024×768 on my QNX target.
– chrish
19″ LCD here running at a native resolution of 1280×1024. 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 1280×960 on my 19″ CRTs. The next 4:3 step is 1600×1200 which is a nice resolution but unfortunately way too blurry and flickery (75 Hz max).
Well, 1680×1050 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 1280×800 or so due to my video card, though.
My CRT can goes up to 1600×1200 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 1600×1200 though! Too bad I can’t use this resolution so 1280×960 for me.
Color computer II
but seriously.. for my laptop, its 1024 x 768
1024×768 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!
1280×1024 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 1280×1024, 1280×1024, or 1024×768 depending on the box that I’m switched to at the moment.
…and another vote for 1280×960 on my 19″ CRTs. The next 4:3 step is 1600×1200 which is a nice resolution but unfortunately way too blurry and flickery (75 Hz max).
I just switched today on 1360×1024 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 1600×1200, glad I checked
Oh, and the refresh rate is also fine – 100 Hz, otherwise it’d be still using 1280×1024.
“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 – 1680×1050 – 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. 2×525. But I have a camcorder – in PAL because PAL has more vertical resolution than NTSC. I’ll wait a little longer for 1920×1200 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 😉
832×624 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 1400×1050 on my laptop at home and 1024×768 + 1024×768 + 1280×1024 in a 3 screen panorama at work. At my previous job, I had a 4 monitor set-up, with 3 at 1024×768 and one at 1280×1024. 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 1024×768 or 1280×1024 it feels really uncomfortable for me.
Well I definately have a standard resolution! 1280×1024, 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.
1280×1024 not a 4:3 resolution
By Vecchio (IP: —.gfa.gbg.bostream.se) – Posted on 2005-03-03 18:54:08
Strange.. 1280×1024 is there, but not 1280×960 which is a correct 4:3 resolution. I know it’s more common, but I have really not understood where 1280×1024 came from.. Anyone here knows?
— Vecchio
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Is it not 16:9 then???
1920×1200 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 720×384.
1024×768 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 1280×960@100hz. This res isn’t in the options, don’t you ppl realise that 1280×1024 isn’t square pixel? The only reason it become common is because early video-cards had to have binary number res’s.