I've been running on 1600x1200 for quite a while since I got my new 19" monitor.
But I've just cranked it up to 2048x1536 for a laugh - and I like it 8)
Screen Resolutions
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun 29 Feb, 2004 22.58
- Location: Aventura, Florida
I'm running dual Apple Cinema 23 HD displays at 1920x1200 each (widescreen aspect/native resolution). Since it is dual-desktop, the effective resolution is 3840x1200... which makes finding desktop pictures a pain.
Well I now run at 1280x960. I run it at that because my graphics card only supports 256 colours at 1600x1200 and 1280x1024 just looks wierd.dvboy wrote:1280x960 apparently, which isn't on the list and no-one else has mentioned it so I'm wondering if it's unusual. Any higher and it looks silly or I wouldn't be able to read the text at normal sizes.
I noticed a few months ago that my Graphics Card also has a Widescreen Ratio. Looks quite nice, if only I had the moniter to go with it.
What's up with 1280x1024? It's the size I use and it looks fine when taking up the whole of the window, but it's in a different ratio to 800x600 and 1024x768, which also look fine full screen. How does that work?
What's up with 1280x1024? It's the size I use and it looks fine when taking up the whole of the window, but it's in a different ratio to 800x600 and 1024x768, which also look fine full screen. How does that work?
it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant (plus I can get a better refresh rate with it).Chris J wrote:I noticed a few months ago that my Graphics Card also has a Widescreen Ratio. Looks quite nice, if only I had the moniter to go with it.
What's up with 1280x1024? It's the size I use and it looks fine when taking up the whole of the window, but it's in a different ratio to 800x600 and 1024x768, which also look fine full screen. How does that work?
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2003 20.03
- Location: West Midlands
In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.Hymagumba wrote:it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.Chris J wrote:I noticed a few months ago that my Graphics Card also has a Widescreen Ratio. Looks quite nice, if only I had the moniter to go with it.
What's up with 1280x1024? It's the size I use and it looks fine when taking up the whole of the window, but it's in a different ratio to 800x600 and 1024x768, which also look fine full screen. How does that work?
To check, divide the bigger number by the smaller number. If it's a "square" ratio you should get a value of 1.3 recurring.
Example: 800x600 screen resolution. Key into your calculator 800. Press divide, key in 600 and press Enter. Result: 1.3 recurring.
1280x1024, however, returns a flat 1.25 and so is not a proper "square" ratio. But if you're happy with it, its up to you. Some monitors can adjust for it and be happy with it, other's can't.
It just looks too stretched out on my monitor. The effect is a bit like when you get a 4:3 image and display it in stretchyvision on a widescreen TV, although the effects are not as bad, but the stretchyness is still noticeable if you know what I mean.Chris J wrote:What's up with 1280x1024? It's the size I use and it looks fine when taking up the whole of the window, but it's in a different ratio to 800x600 and 1024x768, which also look fine full screen. How does that work?
he has a name you knowNeil Jones wrote:In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.Hymagumba wrote:it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.
"He has to be larger than bacon"
-
- Posts: 661
- Joined: Thu 11 Sep, 2003 20.03
- Location: West Midlands
But I left the name in the quote source so saw no need to repeat it... :roll:Hymagumba wrote:he has a name you knowNeil Jones wrote:In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.Hymagumba wrote:it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.