What is Digg?66 Comments
- RyanPMcBride, on 04/23/2009, -0/+2I personally use 1280 x 1024. But I'm wondering if this is due to most people's older monitors not supporting anything higher? Nah, probably not.
- lilgryph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess we've found a new way to compare dick sizes.
- ivanjs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2My own site poll revealed a somewhat different result-
50.6% use 1280x1024
28.5% use 1024x768
15.6% use 1600x1200
3.4% still use 640x480
1.5% use 800x600 (!)
.4% had no idea - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is evildoer talking about? I work everyday in 1280x1024 on my LCD monitors. They're not 5:4. All my pictures and artwork render perfectly.
I work in Photoshop, Painter and Maya all day long and nothing has ever ever looked "squished".
WTF dude... - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ksgant: If your monitor is not a widescreen monitor, then the physical dimension of your monitor are 4:3. This means you should be using a screen resolution that is also 4:3. 1280x1024 is NOT 4:3 (4:3, or 4 divided by three is 1.33333, but 1280 divided by 1024 is 1.25), so if you use 1280x1024, things will be SLIGHTLY stretched horizontally. It may or may not be enough for you to notice, but the aspect ratio is not correct for the monitor.
1280 divided by 960 is 1.3333333. - KYDS3K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good info to know for web designers . . .
- mattb19us, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11400 x 1050. The only way to go.
- Math-Sux, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I use an apple LCD set to the native 1680 x 1050 with my Mac. The extra real estate is awesome for apps like Photoshop, Quark, inDesign, etc. (all I use a Mac for is print design). My pc (which I do web work and everything else on) is set to 1024 x 768 because that's how I like it. At one time I was thinking about getting a another 20" LCD for the pc and plugged the apple display in to get a feel for the difference. 1680 x 1050 in windows drove me nuts! The native resolution is the only one that's usable - anything less looks blurry and literally gives me a headache. Yeah, I can adjust the windows interface to make things more readable, but I found it painful to use the internet. I can also bump the fonts in the browser, but more times than not at the expense of distorting websites. Video was another huge issue, those trailers on rottentomatoes.com became real hard to see. The sites I build are 'best viewed' at 1024 x 768, but I make sure there's no problems at 800 x 600 and don't look silly at much higher resolutions either. I think it's all personal preference, but those stats are important to me as a web development consideration.
- mmph4n471c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1280x1024, 17" LCD. Better than the 1024x768 that I had before, since Photoshop demands a lot of room to work in...
- Bleek-II, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1152x864 on my main screen and 1024x768 on the second.
- Scatropolis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My parents used 800x600 for the longest time until just recently they switched to 1024x768. I guess they got sick of me not changing it back....
1600x1200 for me though. - SybotCB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have a 1600x1200 LCD monitor as well.
At work it's 1280x1024.
I agree. I don't understand why 1280x1024 ever became a resolution. It should have been 1280x960, and if you have a CRT monitor you need to change it. - BLASTOCYST, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0T'was a joke!
- disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'll amend that by saying that I don't doubt that they exist, but I don't think they're that common. And after some quick searching, I come across a couple 1.25s as well as a 1.57 (all LCD). So, yeah, non-standard aspect ratios are out there.
- Mongoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the only reason i use 1024 is because my POS moniter maxs out at it. :(
- disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ksagent: if your monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960, then that's a different story altogether. Of course you should use that setting, because that's what it was designed for.
qopax: This might be a US vs UK thing, but I've never in my life seen a monitor - CRT or LCD - with a physical aspect ratio of 5:4. You'll have to point me to a source for that. - SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*how do they track this kind of stuff?*
via javascript - your browser, browser verson, OS, and screen resolution are all super easy to get. - sarasweet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01280x1024 on a 17", but my eyes are still young. Ever sit down at your parents or grandparents computer? My grandparents can't see anything on a resolution bigger than 800x600. I'm just glad they can actually use a computer to e-mail me, or I'd never talk to them!
- RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1152x864.
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I prefer 1280x1024 but thats just me...
- ah802, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm using 1280 X 720 HDTV default native on a 27" LCD widescreen, no aspect distortion and I have room for extras.
- rmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My laptop is 1024x768 which is really annoying, what I use most of the time is my workstation at work that has 1680x1050 which is really nice.
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a 12" laptop screen at 7680×4800?.....damn your glasses must look like coke bottles lmao
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my laptop has a funky resolution 1280x768(i think), so anything with a 4:3 ratio is stupid looking, but for my desktop i use 1280x960. Old people always comment on how small everything is. they're so dumb.
- Mattrichards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mine is 1280 by 1024
is that weird - MerlinTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1600x1200...
I never want to go back. - SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is more a story about monitors and laptops instead of actual screen resolutions - most people don't know crap about changing monitors, and use whatever the 'default' setting is. Also, laptops haven't had 800x600 resolution in years, so the statistics on that resolution are obviously dropping. Still, savvy webdesigners use XHTML and CSS to ensure complete readability (and design) regardless of resolution. All Hail CSS Zen Garden!
- patrickweber, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's not that people choose 10x7, its that more dumbasses are clouding the internet with the $300 dell from best buy.
- lionwilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've been using 10x7 for a long time, and I thought it was fine until two things happened... For one, I got a new laptop with a 1280x768 widescreen, and I loved the extra wideness of it while surfing and working in Photoshop and whatnot. Also, I just upgraded my video card, and I can run most games at full settings great, and I want to boost my resolution so I can get more out of the game, but my current LCD only supports up to 10x7. I've been looking into getting a good 12x10 LCD, but I don't know whether to invest the extra money for DVI. Anyone got a link to a good comparison between DVI and regular VGA, or have any personal experiences?
- torindkflt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0On my primary computer and my office computer, I use 1024x768. I'd use 1280x1024, but 15" monitors don't support it. On my laptop I am forced to use 800x600 because it won't work at anything higher. It sucks, it's very cramped. My father uses 800x600 on his computer because his vision isn't the best, and he can't read anything higher.
- hass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love my 20" 1680x1050 monitor. Wish I had the 24" 1920x1200 though.
- Paiway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I only get 60hz in 1280x1024, so I use 1024x768.
- Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the physical dimension of your monitor is 5:4, and not 4:3 as disord3r said. Most 17" and 19" lcd's have a physical dimensions at 5:4, just like their resolution, so everything is in perfect proportions and isn't stretched or squished. gg
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When I put this monitor at 1280x960 the type looks terrible and broken up...even after auto-adjusting it.
Dunno, manuals for these things say the native res should be 1280x1024. But I guess you guys know more than the people that built it.
Oh well... - JAPAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dont see why there isnt a precent for people using 1680x1050. Dell is pretty much giving them away now.
- IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how do they track this kind of stuff? do they just collect a bunch of n00bs with old computers and ask them what resolution they run at? I use 1280x1024 but I would use 1600x1200 if I had a 20" LCD instead of a crappy 19"
- matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01600X1200 baby
or on my notebook 1280 X 800 - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Most people that use low resolutions are doing so just because they're stuck with hardware they can't afford to upgrade or have no desire to upgrade. My mom's computer still has a 14" CRT. The convex shape of the glass screen makes me laugh - it's like watching someone browse the web on a fishbowl! But that's all she does; browse the web, check e-mail, and that's about it. For her to spend money upgrading her monitor would be a bit of a waste. 1024x768 is a pretty high resolution for such a small screen, so she just uses 800x600 with a small font size.
For me, 1600x1200 on a 21" screen. That's about as high as I'm willing to go (I like 1280x960 on 17" and 1280x1024 on 19"). - psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I personally use 800 X 600
Tiny monitor + extreme near-sightedness (I qualify as legally blind)= 600 x 600 resolution.
Frankly, I wish I could afford a larger monitor. - ermau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm actually using 1920x1200 on my windows box (someone mentioned that they couldn't stand widescreen on windows.) I can never go back, I love it. (Yes it's an Apple monitor BTW.)
- psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0extreme near-sightedness also means more typos. :p
- jefflundberg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My desktop is 2560x1024 (2x 1280x1024), but I typically "surf" between 800x1000 to 1024x1000. Is that weird?
- Rhomboid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I think it's a myth that high resolution has to equate to tiny fonts. You can set the DPI to whatever you want. If you want to keep large fonts you can still turn up the resolution. In fact, the letters will be even easier to read if you increase the resolution and DPI (and keep them the same size) because they will be smoother. There's absolutely no reason to be using 800x600 unless your hardware doesn't support higher.
- Blizaine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use a laptop with a 15.4" LCD at 1920x1200 and I could never live without it now... Simply amazing! Some think it's too high rez, but I love it!
- unroar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0That whole 'native resolution' thing pisses me off. I recently went shopping for a new monitor and I was thinking I would get a LCD, but they are all 1280 native resolution even the 19"ers, and anything bigger than that looks like crap. So I ended up with a beautiful 22" Trinitron CRT and I run it @ 1600.
CRTs are still way better than LCD's, and they're getting really cheap. - jdelamater, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Part of the problem with 800x600 is that most old computer setups, out of the box, are defaulted to that resolution. While most video cards within, say, 5 years, can handle at least (or at most) 1024, a lot of people are clueless on how to, or why to, change the way their screen looks.
I'm glad, though, that the common resolution is increasing. Workable desktop space is invaluable. I just wish my freakin' 12" PB had higher than 1024!!! Ugh. - ihate2regist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01600x1200
- CrazyWonderland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm running 3 19" CRT monitors at the moment and I'm going to upgrade to 5 LCD panels (yes my computer supports 5!). I'm currently running at 1280x1024. Have been considering going up to 20" LCDs running 1600x1200, but I think that its really either going to be a choice of me getting glasses, or sticking with 19" LCDs running 1280x1024. I think I'd rather stick with the 19"'s for now and worry about glasses later :P Running 5 on one machine will give me 6400x1024 or 5120x1280 depending on whether I have them portrait or landscape. I'd like to run them all in portrait but on XP you only get a taskbar on one of them which sucks. I tried Ultramon but found it crashed and did strange things. This problem is fixed in Vista though thank god and, I'd have a nice taskbar going over all 5.
Anyway I'm tossing up between Samsung 940Bs and Samsung 970Ps mainly because they're height adjustable - obviously the 970P will be better but has anyone been able to compare these monitors to see if its worth the extra money? In Australia, 5 940B's will cost me $2500 and 5 970Ps will cost me $4000.
Just wondering if that extra $1500 is gonna be worth it given I'll be keeping them for at least 3 years (or more). Can anyone tell me? - DarkSideX, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0good to know this
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is important news, aside from webpage development this is a very important story with far reaching applications.
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is