Metropol

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)

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.

1280x960 apparently, which isn't on the list and no-one else has mentioned it so I'm wondering if it's unusual.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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).

Hymagumba wrote:

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?

it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.

In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.

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.

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?

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.

Neil Jones wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.

In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.

he has a name you know

Hymagumba wrote:

Neil Jones wrote:

Hymagumba wrote:it's a silly size. I normally use 1280x960 which is the correct ratio - much more pleasant.

In other words, he means it's a proper "square" ratio, ie, a 1.3.

he has a name you know

But I left the name in the quote source so saw no need to repeat it... :roll:

Neil Jones wrote:But I left the name in the quote source so saw no need to repeat it... :roll:

That would be an "alias" I am of course refering to my actual name which is Brenda.