Whats you monitor resolution?

[mymemory]

I'm wondering what is the average resolution that people with Macs use.

I have a 17" Sony CTR monitor and I'm always jumping from 1152x870 to 1024x768. I like more the first one even I read better with the lats one. I use the first one to desing better.

I have a friend that has a 17" like me (he has a PC) but he uses 1600x1200, he is a web designer and you can tell in some other monitors, his sites looks hudge.

 

[eyelikeart]

at work I use a Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 91 19" at 1024 x 768....
(if anyone can give me some exact #'s for an "accurate" calibration I'd be in your debt forever!)

and on the TiBook of course is 1152 x 768...

 

[AlphaTech]

My 21" ViewSonic G910 at work is set to 1280x1024. I will check the peecee at home, but my TiBook is also at 1152x768 .

 

[Beej]

My 19" Sony G420 is always at 1600x1200, unless I'm playing games.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

At home: Apple 21" at 1280x1024 although sometimes I'll bring it up to 1600x1200 if I need the res for photoshop.

At work: TiPB as high as it will go 1152x768 (they really need to get a higher res version)

 

[LethalWolfe]

2048*768*32


I've got 2 17"s w/the desktop stretched across both.


Lethal

 

[Beej]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
2048*768*32

Eh? You've got a 3D monitor? Or is that supposed to be *2, not *32?

 

[AlphaTech]

Originally posted by Beej
Eh? You've got a 3D monitor? Or is that supposed to be *2, not *32?

The 32 is probably the color depth (bit rate) number... aka max colors.

 

[Beej]

Originally posted by AlphaTech
The 32 is probably the color depth (bit rate) number... aka max colors.

Ahhh, right. That would make sense. Sorry!

In that case, I'd like to add '*32' to the end of my res.

 

[mac15]

well we all know that os 9 looks crap in 1024x768
so I only use 800x600

 

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by mac15
well we all know that os 9 looks crap in 1024x768
so I only use 800x600

on the contrary......9 looks fine at 1024 x 768.....are u using a smaller monitor?!

 

[irmongoose]

Originally posted by mac15
well we all know that os 9 looks crap in 1024x768
so I only use 800x600

what the heck? no it doesn't (unless you're using a 9-inch monitor or something crazy like that).


well, I use teh best resolution I can have on my new iMac.. 1024x768. I wish there was just one higher resolution... just a little, please?



irmongoose

 

[mymemory]

What is funny about this threads is how organize they start and how they gradually become a mess.

I think 1600 x 1200 is way too small. Just try to write your resume in word at that resolution... or may be I'm getting old?

 

[Mr. Anderson]

graphics card

The new graphics cards support resolutions in ranges most of us won't or can't ever use. I personaly don't know anyone who has a monitor that views 2000x1600. But I would do almost anything to have something that large.

I'm looking forward for the day that displays catch up with graphics cards.

 

[eyelikeart]

Originally posted by mymemory
What is funny about this threads is how organize they start and how they gradually become a mess.

I think 1600 x 1200 is way too small. Just try to write your resume in word at that resolution... or may be I'm getting old?

no u aren't old....your icons look tiny and the mouse tracking gets all messed up...

it's not worth the trouble of having to work harder to get to things on the screen & read them just to have a bit more working space....

 

[Choppaface]

on my sony 18" viewable, 1024 by 768

when I got my LaCie electron blueIII 22 incher, I had to step up to 1152 by 870 in order to keep things sharp. 1280x 1024 was a bit overkill IMO

I used to be at 640x480 cuz everything was easy to read. then i had to step up to 832x624 for web design (never was at 800x600), and then finally stepped up to 1024x768 when I saw how sharp everything was

the thing with ultra high res is that it makes sense for bigger monitors. on my 22" LaCie, although I'm too lazy to do it mathmatically, it appears to have about the same dpi as 1024x768 on my 18" viewable sony. no it does not make sense to do 1600x1200 on an 18" monitor

as for reading/typing at high res, just zoom in a little. I write all my papers at 125% zoom

 

[G4scott]

My iBook is set to 1024x768x32. The graphics are sharp, but some text can be a little hard on the eyes. 800x600 just looks like crap on a new iBook, since it's 'true' resolution is 1024x768. CRT's can change their resolution and still look fine, but most LCDs are made for one primary resolution. Everything else looks a little funny, and blurry.

I like the resolution on my iBook, though, but the thought that Apple puts the same number of pixels on the iMac's 15" screen is a bit disturbing. the pixels must be a lot bigger (i haven't seen one in person.) maybe Apple will up the resolution, but i wouldn't expect a change in the display's physical size.

 

[Beej]

Originally posted by G4scott
My iBook is set to 1024x768x32. The graphics are sharp, but some text can be a little hard on the eyes. 800x600 just looks like crap on a new iBook, since it's 'true' resolution is 1024x768. CRT's can change their resolution and still look fine, but most LCDs are made for one primary resolution. Everything else looks a little funny, and blurry.

That can be a good thing for games. Kind of like getting FSAA for free.

Hey, you gotta look at the positives!

 

[King Cobra]

Wow, everyone seems to like their high resolution. I like 800x600, even on my 15 inch LCD monitor. The pixels are smooth; the font is large, and I do not need anything higher at all.
__________________

It does not take a genius to figure it out . . . just someone who uses a Mac.