Post #585
6/30/01 6:47:41 PM
|

Poll: Resolution
A quick poll:
What resolution do you normally run at?
-Jason
----
My pid is Inigo Montoya. You "killed -9" my parent process. Prepare to vi.
|
Post #586
6/30/01 6:55:28 PM
|

1400x1050
Regards,
-scott anderson
|
Post #587
6/30/01 6:43:18 PM
|

1600x1200
-YendorMike
In order to understand recursion, one must understand recursion.
|
Post #588
6/30/01 8:14:46 PM
|

Whatever the max is.
Right now, 1024x768
|
Post #590
6/30/01 8:25:08 PM
|

Ditto.
Alex
|
Post #591
6/30/01 9:07:00 PM
|

1024 X 768
[link|www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #592
6/30/01 11:25:13 PM
|

1280 x 1024 on home 19"; 1152 x 864 on work 17"
|
Post #593
7/1/01 12:40:14 AM
|

Various.
17" Mac - 1024x768x16M - Sony 200sx 17" PC - 1600x1200x16M - Hitachi (mumble, and CM615) 19" PC - 1600x1200x16M - Hitachi (mumble, mumble) 14" PC - 1024x768x256 - Sony 1430
1600x1200 is *very* nice. It's hard to go back after using it. But you need modern hardware...
Cheers, Scott.
|
Post #595
7/1/01 1:36:49 AM
|

1024x768 and 1280x1024
Main PC right now is work laptop. Run it at 1280x1024 on NEC 21" at work when docked, and at 1024x768 when away from the office on its LCD screen.
--- Steve
|
Post #600
7/1/01 4:52:10 AM
|

1280x1024
1280x1024 on a 21" at home 1024x768 on a 17" at work.
-- Chris Altmann
|
Post #602
7/1/01 7:54:19 AM
|

Standard 1024x768
... since that's the max on this laptop. A lot of people live at this res nowadays so it's comfortable.
I think my games PC is a bit higher, 1280x1024 rings a bell. I don't think my monitor likes 1600 across all that well. No, scratch that: my eyes don't like my monitor doing 1600! :-) My other PC, the one I just installed RH7.1 on, is as 1024x768, mostly because I had trouble making the X Server go and I knew it could do that resolution.
My server stays in 80x25 text mode.
Wade.
"All around me are nothing but fakes Come with me on the biggest fake of all!"
|
Post #607
7/1/01 8:34:57 AM
|

1280x1024x16M
My monitor can do better. My eyes are the limiting factor
Hugh
|
Post #614
7/1/01 1:12:57 PM
|

Not so simple
Lap...1024x768 cause thats all there is 19 inch home mon 16x12 or 1280x1024 depending on what I'm doing 17 inch office 1280x1024 15 inch home 1024x768
Thats the basic ones...but I'll bounce resolutions frequently depending on task and time...if I'm wandering about the room I'll run a lower res so I can read the screens from farther away...
Preferred....1280x1024...thats a good balance for me it seems.
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
Um...er...well...I have no choice!
|
Post #616
7/1/01 1:32:41 PM
|

1152x864
|
Post #624
7/1/01 4:56:32 PM
|

640 x 480 ;-) for now..
OK it's an old Optiquest 15" - but not a bad forum test for folks what ain't got lots o' bread but still want enlightenment from the WMEIAGs (Who Me? I be a God)
Seems to handle the er extra CRs - though posting at this res. entails some L/R scrolling.
A.
|
Post #649
7/2/01 10:08:05 AM
|

1600 x 1200; Browser sized to 1024 x 768
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #799
7/3/01 4:14:40 PM
|

What mean?
How do you set a different browser res? or is this terminology I'm taking too literally?
A.
|
Post #811
7/3/01 6:29:26 PM
|

Browser is always sized to 1024x768
Most sites are still designed to either 800x600 or 1024x768. If I leave the browser maximized, the lines of text on many of these end up too long to read comfortably. So I guess technically the browser size has nothing to do with the resolution the monitor is set at, but usually when someone asks this question they're interested in how much real estate they can design to.
This is my sig. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Post #813
7/3/01 7:02:39 PM
|

Thanks - sorta see - it is a webdev choice..
|
Post #685
7/2/01 3:47:38 PM
|

1024x768
Have fun, Carl Forde
|
Post #836
7/4/01 10:24:07 AM
|

Re: Poll: Resolution
FUG yaz all
- I'm gunna buy a 17in tft flat panel monitor then I too can go comfortably beyond 800 x 600. (damn !!! - had to give away all those bulky old 5081-19 IBM monitors before moving to HK - where aptmnts are so damn small that a 2in deep flat panel is thought of as bulky)
My work supplied notebook does 1024 x 768 & I can actually see the screen easier than my home 15in choobe which is a top of the range model with zilch flicker.
Thanks for giving me the incentive to go flat-panel TFT monitor (helps justify the expense to wife)
Cheers
Doug
|
Post #859
7/4/01 8:56:52 PM
|

Well, now that I have more than the &^@# 1-MB video ...
on the brick-reliable Tecra now freed for notebook duty:
I *like* the 1024- on my Goldstar umm earlier.. primo 17" (good for 1280 or more, in principle). With fonts set to '12' I get good crisp def'n and thanks to Scott's Zopical prestidigit-ations - via the "narrower" box, a couple clicks = don't gotta scroll l/r either.
('Course he may not find the little er Zope mod, but..)
And the bkg. can next be a soothing and uniform color, soon's i mix one up. Try it!
A.
|
Post #839
7/4/01 12:06:45 PM
|

Stats
Res My Site / Global 640x480 2% 5% 800x600 24% 56% 1024x768 46% 30% 1152x864 7% 2% 1280x1024 13% 2% 1600x1200 3% 0%
[link|www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #869
7/5/01 7:07:59 AM
|

1024 x 768 at the moment
... as I'm on the iBook.
Work PC & Main PC at home: 1152 x 864
On and on and on and on, and on and on and on goes John.
|
Post #926
7/5/01 6:33:41 PM
|

Re: Poll: Resolution
1024x768@100Hz at home (17" monitor) 1152x864@100Hz at work (19" monitor)
At such high resolutions, I find anything below 85 Hz intolerable, and 85Hz isn't too comfortable for an extended period, though it's good for lower resolutions.
qts
|
Post #929
7/5/01 6:40:14 PM
|

Funny; I'm OK down to ~75 on those res's.
|