1024 x 768 on a 17" Norcent LCD screen
I use a 15'' CRT monitor with a 75hz refresh rate. Have done for 2 years now with no problems at all.
I like 1024 but will be moving up one step next week. Finally getting a flat screen monitor with even higher resolutions. Kinda like watching a movie with Widescreen instead of a "scrunched" up picture. Hope that makes sense ![]()
Flat panels are convenient, but you should be aware that if you want to play 3D games with LCD glasses, a flat panel monitor is not fast enough. Only a CRT monitor will work. If you don't mind having a monitor that weighs 100 pounds and takes up a lot of space, you can get more bang for the buck by buying a second hand CRT monitor of 21 inches or more.
I've got a Samsung 213T with the Pivot Pro Software, and a 17inch 712N next to it. ATI AllInWonder 9600 card driving them. I do some newsletters, so I can set up a page on the portrait screen and use the other as a ''Drag & Drop'' source. I get about 125% page size to work on and don't have to alt-tab to get to my sources
I have a 19" ViewSonic VX900 LCD and run it at its maximum resolution (1280x1024) for everything I do including games. Everything looks grat and my eyes no longer get fatigued.
1024x728
1024x768
I prefer 1024 x 768 on a 19 inch monitor.
This seems to be best for my 17" LCD monitor. I really haven't given it much thought since setting up my computer a couple of years ago.
Depending on what you use it for. For gamers, probably not.
Unlike claims, I don't think a 1280 horizontal resolution can well support two windows tiled vertically.
Jason
My favorite resolution is 1024x768 for a 17" CRT or a 15" or 17" LCD.
1600x1200 is great for really big monitors of 21" or greater.
The resolution 1280x1024 is evil.
The reason I say this because the pixels are not square. More on this below.
When viewing graphics at 1280x1024 all images will appear to be stretched slightly wider (but not taller) than they should. this includes both artwork, and photos.
This is why:
On resolutions 640x480, 1024x768, and 1600x1200, the display aspect ratio is 4:3 or 1.3333:1. Since the physical screen width is 1.333 of the screen height, the pixels are square (pixel aspect ratio of 1:1).
PDAs also support resolutions with square pixels: 160x160, 320x320, 240x320, and 480x640.
The only widely used resolution with this problem is 1280x1024.
With 1280x1024 the Display aspect ratio (DAR) is 5:4 or 1.25:1. with the physical screen being 4:3 or 1.3333:1.
This results in each pixel being slightly wider than tall.
Why does this matter?
Because any artwork or photos viewed in 1280x1024 are not appearing as the artist (or photographer) intended.
Likewise,
If an artist works in this resolution, all of their work will look different than they intended in any resolution other than 1280x1024.
Bottom Line is that 1280x1024 is fine for most people if you don't mind all images being stretched a bit.
It should definitely be taboo for ALL artists.
I haven't done the calculations for widescreen resolutions. I hope the manufacturers were smart enough to use square pixels.
For those interested, here's an article that explains aspect ratios for the movie industry.
http://www.mir.com/DMG/aspect.html
Radical
I rather 1024x768 because most of the monitors i own are 17" monitors which only support up to that resolution. Well if i get something that can support highter well i might just change.
| Forum legend: | |
| Locked thread | |
| Moderator | |
![]() |
CNET staff |
![]() |
Samsung staff |
| Norton Authorized Support team | |
| AVG staff | |
| Windows Outreach team | |
![]() |
Dell staff |
| Intel staff | |