Aqua-Soft ForumsI am just curious what resolutions people run. I have been running 1600x1200 but always have trouble finding good wallpapers, of course. Thinking about switching to a smaller one but change always seems so drastic at first. :canadian:
Resolutions
I'm on an 18.1" LCD, so I've got a choice of 1280*1024 or blurry*ashell.
Ok, maybe it's not that bad, but LCDs outside their "native" resolution aren't pretty...
Roll on the "Longhorn class" LCDs next year, with native resolutions of 3200*1800 
heh. the monitors at work are like 17' flats from Dell. I was kinda amazed at how crappy they look. I mean they seem easier on the eyes but the resolutions suck. I've got a 21' viewsonic so I was gonna toy around with some of the rezs but I noticed that some were more obscure and stretched dimensions. I'll try out 1280 x 1024 when I get home. Longhorn Class Lcds? I haven't heard about those but 3200 x 1800 sounds phatty bangin'.
Originally posted by simplex@Nov 5 2003, 08:01 PMheh. the monitors at work are like 17' flats from Dell. I was kinda amazed at how crappy they look. I mean they seem easier on the eyes but the resolutions suck. I've got a 21' viewsonic so I was gonna toy around with some of the rezs but I noticed that some were more obscure and stretched dimensions. I'll try out 1280 x 1024 when I get home. Longhorn Class Lcds? I haven't heard about those but 3200 x 1800 sounds phatty bangin'.
Basically, Microsoft have used their (oh-so-awful, as the naysayers will tell you) 'fluence on LCD panel manufacturers to "bully" them into making higher density panels, so instead of 96DPI, they'll be about 150-180DPI, apparently. Therefore, people who praise OSX's 128*128px icons won't be so impressed when they see them on a Longhorn display... They'll be about the size of current 32*32 icons (I know, 64*64 really, but I like to hyperbolate) :6
And no, if you're on Longhorn, you won't have to squint at everything - it'll all scale nicely so that it's just prettier, but the same size... Unless you want to squint, of course. 
Basically, Microsoft have used their (oh-so-awful, as the naysayers will tell you) 'fluence on LCD panel manufacturers to "bully" them into making higher density panels, so instead of 96DPI, they'll be about 150-180DPI, apparently. Therefore, people who praise OSX's 128*128px icons won't be so impressed when they see them on a Longhorn display... They'll be about the size of current 32*32 icons (I know, 64*64 really, but I like to hyperbolate)
naice. well I like the fact that the high rez flat monitors are coming out regardless of the source. I wonder if they will be expensive like the apple cinema displays. Hope not that much. Longhorn sounds like it is going to be very visually luxorious.
:naughty:
:cry: :cry: :cry: I run in 1024x768 on a 15" Packard Bell monitor. When was the last time they sold Packard Bell monitor in the United States? I think it was well over six years ago.
Originally posted by simplex@Nov 5 2003, 08:24 PM
naice. well I like the fact that the high rez flat monitors are coming out regardless of the source. I wonder if they will be expensive like the apple cinema displays. Hope not that much. Longhorn sounds like it is going to be very visually luxorious.
:naughty:
Initially, I would imagine they'll be very expensive ($4000, I would imagine, for a 20" panel - that's roughly twice the price of a 23" Apple Cinema Display).
What you've got to remember, though, is that even the Apple displays are only 96DPI. Unless you buy custom-made LCDs, I very much doubt you'll be able to buy an LCD anywhere with the sort of DPI that Longhorn-class LCDs will offer.
This, as you can probably imagine, will make them the most amazing screens to use.
The first batch are intended for launch around the end of next summer, so that the prices drop to a feasible level for Longhorn's release...
And people say that Microsoft's influence over other companies is a bad thing! 
I've been very happy at 1280x1024 myself, nice n' clear and nothing seems to big or too small (...and I found myself squintin' too much at 1600x1200...must be gettin' old)
hot damn that's a lot of money! Hmmm I didn't know the apples were only 96dpi as well. Hmm. My buddy had one (was bugalurized) and I amazed at the screen quality.. last year. I guess I am happy with my viewsonic eventhough it is a juggarnaut. its like 22 inches deep as well so it's like just a huge box. Sometimes my friends worry it will break the table I have it on right now. heh. It's a reinforced card table. Ghhetto.
Originally posted by simplex@Nov 5 2003, 08:43 PMhot damn that's a lot of money! Hmmm I didn't know the apples were only 96dpi as well. Hmm. My buddy had one (was bugalurized) and I amazed at the screen quality.. last year. I guess I am happy with my viewsonic eventhough it is a juggarnaut. its like 22 inches deep as well so it's like just a huge box. Sometimes my friends worry it will break the table I have it on right now. heh. It's a reinforced card table. Ghhetto.
What you've got to remember is that 5 years ago, LCDs were that sorta price, for a 15" one...
So, given a couple of years, they'll be nice and cheap. And, of course, all of the figures I gave are just guesswork...
true. and I've never really been able to get things as soon as they come out. I'm used to waiting a while.
running at the max resolution 1280x1024 on my 17" lcd.
At home, a 19" at 1280x1024.
At work on my 21" 1280x1024. I'm still trying to find a card lying around work capable of doing more. One day I thought I had one, but when I bumped it up to 1600x1200, it'd only do 16-bit color 
17" widescreen lcd 1280x768
i've got a geforce 4 ti 4200 I think.. made by pny. It goes up to what ever comes right after 1600 x 1200 but I don't really use that because it's way too small and I have to squint and get all up on the monitor to read. I think the general consensus is 1280x1024, so I'm gonna try that one out. Probably a lot more wallpapers for that rez as well.
17" 1024x768 LCD, i made the mistake of getting the LCD that came with my computer...it sux.....ive learned my lesson now
i cant wait until it dies and i get to get a 19" CRT <- :rule:
wow that's gotta suck for gaming huh
1680x1050 Widescreen on a 15 inch LCD
Originally posted by Chairman85@Nov 5 2003, 10:55 PM1680x1050 Widescreen on a 15 inch LCD
wow what kind do you have? That must be one of those high density one. Must be nice!
Originally posted by simplex@Nov 5 2003, 11:59 PMwow what kind do you have? That must be one of those high density one. Must be nice!
I doubt it somehow, unless they work for one of the panel manufacturers or MS (but I may be wrong)...
It's very possible that Chairman85 is just running his/her LCD at higher-than-native resolution, and the results are being shrunk. I've seen so many people do this without realising, it's just silly.
You get a much nicer picture at native resolution, and higher-than-native just means you're dropping pixels...
Chairman85 - What make and model is your LCD?
yea i was thinking the same thing I just didn't want to call anyone out. I remember what you were saying from earlier..
Sandard 1600x1200 on 19" Samsung SM957MB. And I truly love my monitor. CRT :rule: LCD suxxs, I'm waiting for OLED monitors...
Originally posted by Stevie BM@Nov 5 2003, 06:12 PMI doubt it somehow, unless they work for one of the panel manufacturers or MS (but I may be wrong)...
It's very possible that Chairman85 is just running his/her LCD at higher-than-native resolution, and the results are being shrunk. I've seen so many people do this without realising, it's just silly.
You get a much nicer picture at native resolution, and higher-than-native just means you're dropping pixels...
Chairman85 - What make and model is your LCD?
You can't run an LCD higher than its native resolution.
There simply aren't enough pixels.
Originally posted by contrasutra@Nov 6 2003, 12:27 AMYou can't run an LCD higher than its native resolution.
There simply aren't enough pixels.
There are some that handle it, actually, Contra...
They try to scale the number of pixels down (usually badly), or provide viewport scrolling (they follow the mouse around the screen). My monitor, for example, does the latter, but my best mate's does (apparently) both...