pumper Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 the thread on asus laptops revealed to me that many / most computer users use a much higher screen resolution that I do. 1024x768 is what i use on both of my desktop computer setups .. one on a 21' dell crt with my desktop box. & the other a 'retired' 19" phillips crt used with my laptop at home my 15.1" lap top is used at 800x600 on the road. cannot imagine my usage of the high resolutions others enjoy .. as posted in the asus laptop thread. 95% of my usage is text .. an occasional .jpg is viewed .. I've been to 'utube' 3 or 4 times .. once per 2 months I might edit a digital photo or 3 never played a game & never watched a movie on a computer. most forum posts are hard enough to understand .. no point it making them hard to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 I only have a home system. I have a moderately high end 19" LCD dvi video monitor and run it at 1280x1024. On most non-dvi monitors of this size (aliasing problems, smearing, etc) it would be a problem for me 'cause my eyes aren't the best. This one is so crisp for the text and contrast it's not a problem at all. I do image editing, video editing, programming, electronics design (schematics/pcbs) etc. and need the extra resolution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimbo Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop screen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Reimar Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop screen WOW!WOW!WOW! May you've a Microscope in your eye's?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autonomous_unit Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 21 inch 1600x1200 desktop LCD w/ DVI (I previously felt like 1280x1024 was the best on 21 inch CRTs, to avoid fuzzy pixels) 15 inch 1400x1050 laptop, which I don't like to use for too long because it doesn't have contrast as nice as the desktop My most common (Linux) application is "xterm", a text terminal in a window which can fit about 80 lines of text on the laptop screen and even more on the desktop... also, I do set "minimum font size" limits in my web browser because some pages would otherwise use smaller type than I like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronz28 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) Small text is no problem on browsing the internet. Just hold down the control key and press the + bar to increase the text size or - to make it smaller. Works for the current versions of Firefox an internet explorer but I like Firefox best. I use 1280X1024 on my desktop 17 inch monitor with some adjustments for large text in application windows. Plan to upgrade to LCD screen but haven't taken time to shop for it yet. Edited March 31, 2007 by ronz28 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gimbo Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 1920x1200 on my 15.4" laptop screen WOW!WOW!WOW! May you've a Microscope in your eye's?? That makes the text on f.ex this site the same size as a normal book or newspaper text. I find that resolution quite pleaassant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Just took a look at one of my stat counters and for the last 500 visitors: 73% are 1024x768 13% are 800x600 6% are 1280x800 4% are 1280x1024 2% are 1920x1200 2% others Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
endure Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Slightly off topic but I recently read an article which explained why widescreen displays are cheaper than standard format. Apparently it's because of the size of the substrate that they're made from. It's possible to get more widescreen panels from a given size of substrate than it is standard format. Having said that I don't think that widescreen is any advantage unless you're moving up a couple of sizes. I have a 17" standard LCD and I can't see any advantage in moving up to a 19" widescreen. A 22" is a different matter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pumper Posted March 31, 2007 Author Share Posted March 31, 2007 Just took a look at one of my stat counters and for the last 500 visitors:73% are 1024x768 13% are 800x600 6% are 1280x800 4% are 1280x1024 2% are 1920x1200 2% others looks like only a small # of users have wide screens. 6% 1280x800 the rest of your resolutions (1900x1200??) are conventional. as i understand it a diagonal 17" conventional screen has more total pixels than a diagonal 19" wide format.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dclaryjr Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 looks like only a small # of users have wide screens. 6% 1280x800 That's my resolution on a 15.4 inch laptop. I do mainly text stuff so that's good nuff for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I think all the new Macbooks come in widescreen format. I prefer the standard format myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazey Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 1280 x 800 on lappy, 1920x1600 when wired to monitor. macs have a nice zoom feature (ctrl + scroll wheel/two finger drag) so small text is never a problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefoxx Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 1280x800 is the standard for most 12-15" laptops right now, so you'll see a lot more of it. 1280x1024 is the standard for most 4:3 aspect ratio 17-19" desktop LCDs, so you'll see a lot of that. 19-22" desktop LCD widescreens are 1680x1050, so that will be more common soon. Widescreen isn't for everyone, but like the switch to LCD, it's pretty much inevitable since the marketing engine will make us believe that it's better for us. Also, widescreens are cheaper to manufacture (they actually use less material for a given screen size). I personally use 1280x1024 on my nearly-10-year-old 17" Samsung CRT (it can do 1920x1200) and 1280x800 on my laptops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g00dgirl Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 I could never ever work on anything but 1600 x 1200 on a 15" laptop screen. I have done so for many years, at least 4, 5 years or more Thinkpads A31p, T42p, T43p, T60p etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sabajja Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 (edited) For people with bad eyesight, I recommend a 21" monitor at 640X480 resolution. Edited April 1, 2007 by sabajja Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
youbet Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 Just took a look at one of my stat counters and for the last 500 visitors:4% are 1280x1024 Looks like I am part of this 4% on the notebook and desktop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
penguin Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 1440 x 900 is the native resolution on my 19" LCD widescreen. Nice and clear, if you can read a newspaper then you can read it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefoxx Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 1600x1200 laptop 4:3 panels (and 1920x1200 laptop widescreen panels) are EXTREMELY expensive. Even the desktop ones (23"-24") are pretty darn costly. Unless you're very well off or your company pays for your system, you're not going to own one of these. Keep in mind that the diagonal screen measurement is different for CRTs and LCDs. For CRTs, nearly the whole front surface is measured, including the bits covered by the bezel. For LCDs, the whole display area is measured, but in this case the bezel doesn't cover any of the display. Therefore, a 15" LCD has about the same display area as 16.5" CRT (both at 4:3 aspect ratio). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gharknes Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 (edited) 1900/1200 on 17" Dell Laptop WUXGA, I wouldn't use anything lower, text is better than magazine quality with a large desktop work area.......sweet Firefox your statement is 100% correct, this kind of resolution is expensive no matter if laptop or desktop a point I tried to explain on the other thread, most people think desktop PC's are cheap but when you add a high quality display - well not so cheap, I fail to see the point in having a high end graphics card feeding a cheap (which most are) display, kinda like having Linn pre and power amp feeding a set of Binatone speakers. The reason most people don't go above 1280/1024 even if it is possible on their system is because the clarity of the image is so bad, especially on CRT's, I ran a 21" Dell CRT monitor for years and the best you could get before convergence went off and flicker got unbearable was 1280/1024, I used to work in IT support and the first thing I did for people when attending a support call was set up their display correctly, refresh rate had the most impact, most where set on 60Hz which can actually damage vision over a long period, the difference is unblieveable especially with white backgrounds. Edited April 1, 2007 by gharknes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
quiksilva Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1680 x 1050 at home and 1280 x 1024 at the office both with 60hz refresh rates all native resolutions for my monitors. If 60hz is dangerous what should we shoot for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tywais Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1680 x 1050 at home and 1280 x 1024 at the office both with 60hz refresh rates all native resolutions for my monitors. If 60hz is dangerous what should we shoot for? 75Hz is what mine is set for and use the computer for many hours a day with no problem. If you have a monitor with long persistence it probably won't be an issue but with persistence < 15ms can be an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phazey Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1680 x 1050 at home and 1280 x 1024 at the office both with 60hz refresh rates all native resolutions for my monitors. If 60hz is dangerous what should we shoot for? the higher the better if you don't want your eyes to explode. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pomthai Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1440x900 on a 17" widescreen laptop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
autonomous_unit Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 One note: if you use an LCD then high refresh rate is pointless and will probably cause more distortion and blurring than a lower refresh rate (if you are using an analog input). The odd resolution of 1680x1050 sounds like an LCD resolution to me... The LCD panel will take a color and hold it until the next update, unlike CRTs which immediately start fading out and therefore need a quick refresh to minimize the flickering that you might see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
astral Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1680 x 1050 on my HP notebook. It is great for opening multiple windows. Using anything less now looks very clunky. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bino Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 I use 1280 x 1024 on a 19 inch LCD at home, 1024 x 768 at office and on my old laptop (15 inch screens), and 1024 x 800 (14 inch screen) on the new laptop. Love the 19 inch LCD... everything else looks so tiny after spending some time with it! Just took a look at one of my stat counters and for the last 500 visitors:73% are 1024x768 13% are 800x600 6% are 1280x800 4% are 1280x1024 2% are 1920x1200 2% others Your site stats are interesting- quite different from mine... 54.12% are 1024 x 768 27.33% are 1280 X 1024 7.96% are 800 X 600 3.11% are Other 2.79% are 1152 x 864 1.73% are 1440 x 900 0.94% are 1680 x 1050 0.93% are 1400 x 1050 0.64% are 1600 x 1200 0.39% are 1920 x 1200 0.06% are 640 x 480 0.02% are 2048 x 1536 Based overall on a site that has been online / tracking for about 18 months now. I'm always interested to know how many people use 800 by 600 or less, because I always build sites to fit 1024 x 768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Firefoxx Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 One of the reasons the marketing of LCDs as better than CRTs worked was because of the refresh rate issue. Very few people bothered to change the refresh rate of their CRT from the default of 60Hz, and 60Hz is very bad for your eyes. Once they saw the non-flicker performance of LCDs, they were hooked. User error, marketing triumph. My old old CRT does 1280x1024 at 100Hz. Anything less than 85Hz (on a CRT, not LCD) and I get annoyed. Different people have different sensitivities to screen flicker, and I'm more sensitive than most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pumper Posted April 2, 2007 Author Share Posted April 2, 2007 54.12% are 1024 x 768 27.33% are 1280 X 1024 7.96% are 800 X 600 & 73% are 1024x768 13% are 800x600 6% are 1280x800 4% are 1280x1024 both have 90% of us below 1280 screen width. I played with screen resolutions yesterday ... even at a screen width of 1280 most web sites have some amount of blank screen. & at 1024 width only a few sites are too wide.. i posted a screen question on 'toms hardware forum' some time ago .. several of the guys reported 2 documents 'side by side' was how they utilized the wide screen. granted .. 2, side by side .. is an interesting proposition .. I am too old & too conventional to try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taotoo Posted April 2, 2007 Share Posted April 2, 2007 1280x1024 on a 19" lcd for me. Chose that because it's about the lowest ppi you can get with an lcd (along with 1024x768 on a 15"). I also have my browser zoomed in to 150% and sit as far back from the screen as possible. Even with all that, I still wonder if it's ruining my eyes though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now