What's your resolution?

Seismosaurus · 4th September 2003, 12:58 PM

Whenever I've worked on web sites I've designed so that it's just about useable at 640x480, but primarily with 800x600 in mind. 1024x768 was fairly rare five or so years ago, but seems much more common now. So I was wondering, what do you use?

Skeptoid · 4th September 2003, 01:17 PM

1024x768. It is my understanding that most web designers are optimizing for this resolution these days.

Earthborn · 4th September 2003, 01:23 PM

Where's 1152x864 ?

Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well.

I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution.

Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh!

Seismosaurus · 4th September 2003, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Where's 1152x864 ?

Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well.

I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution.

Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh!

It's easy enough to be good in any size when you have a primarily text-based page like this one. But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge. You can avoid it by having multiple rows, but that eats into screen space that you want to use for the actual data.

arcticpenguin · 4th September 2003, 01:53 PM

1280 x 1024

And it's a flat panel with a DVI connection.

Earthborn · 4th September 2003, 01:59 PM

Quote:

But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge.

Ever heard of relative sizes?

Seismosaurus · 4th September 2003, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
1280 x 1024

And it's a flat panel with a DVI connection.

Another reason for asking is that it's about time to ditch my old CRT, so I'm casting my beady eye over 17 inch LCD monitors. So I'm jealous, but I may not be for much longer!

Underemployed · 4th September 2003, 02:07 PM

You did not list 1600 by 1200.....

yuo aer not l33t enough d00d

Theodore Kurita · 4th September 2003, 02:31 PM

1280 x 960

High Res CRT

Seismosaurus · 4th September 2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Underemployed
You did not list 1600 by 1200.....

yuo aer not l33t enough d00d

grumble grumble.. not enough options... grumble grumble... first time I've done a poll... grumble grumble... do better next time...

Rat · 4th September 2003, 02:51 PM

800x600 here, because I'm six feet from the monitor. 1280x1024 at work, where I'm two feet away.

Distance from the monitor really makes a difference to the maximum practical res.

I agree about sites catering for different resolutions. I went to a site to day that shot up a javascript popup telling me something like "This site is designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution. Please change your desktop resolution to see the full site". I though "nope, I'll shop somewhere they can be bothered to put some thought into design."

I've done a fair amount of site design, and it's not difficult. If you're in one of those rare situations where circumstances mean it's not particularly practical to cater to low-res, knock up a quick script to show a differently laid-out page (using css) for the low-res browsers.

Cheers,
Rat.

jj · 4th September 2003, 03:01 PM

1600x1200 screen res.

With an active workspace around that.

scribble · 4th September 2003, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Earthborn
Ever heard of relative sizes?

Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics.

It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that...

ImpyTimpy · 4th September 2003, 03:39 PM

1280 x 1024 at home, flat screen CRT. That's the maximum resolution the monitor can do.

WildCat · 4th September 2003, 04:16 PM

1280 X 1024 @ 85 Hertz refresh rate, I could set it to 1600 X 1200 but that resolution only supports a 75 Hertz refresh rate which isn't as easy on the eyes.

Philip · 4th September 2003, 04:26 PM

1280x1024 on our laptop LCD set as the primary screen
1024x768 on a CRT set as a secondary screen for the laptop

1024x768 on our desktop

Edited to add that, when I run Linux on my laptop, I use a resolution of 1400x1050

Earthborn · 4th September 2003, 06:12 PM

Quote:

Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics.

Ever tried to make an HTML document with relative sizes for text depending on screen resolution? It is very hard. For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages. Only problem you will face is with tables in Opera, as Opera always interprets percentages as percentages of the screenwidth, while other browsers interpret them as percentages of the width of the table cell.

Quote:

It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that...

But almost all resolutions common today have the same aspect ratio: 4x3. And if even if it hasn't, it shouldn't be such a problem, since you can always decide to only give the relative size for the width, ommiting the height. It will cause the picture to remain its own aspect ratio. That way, people using strange resolutions with different aspect ratios may have to scroll down a little, or will have a little extra space at the bottom of the screen.

Occasional Chemist · 4th September 2003, 06:18 PM

My screen size is good ol' 800x600. Primarily, this is because my main computer is a subnotebook - the Thinkpad 240. Sweet machine, but the screen's small.

That's the price you pay for a computer that weighs less than three pounds!

Brian · 4th September 2003, 07:11 PM

1280X1024 17" flat screen CRT. $99.99 after rebates. I done good.

Janus · 4th September 2003, 07:31 PM

1600x1200 Mostly, 2048x1536 when I need to test > 120dpi res, or give my self eyestrain from the flicker.

Seismosaurus · 5th September 2003, 09:56 AM

Speaking of getting a new monitor, does anybody have any reccomendations? I'm after a low end 17 inch LCD - price range about £250 - £300 (UK), but obviously I want the best quality and reliability I can get for that.

Underemployed · 5th September 2003, 10:22 AM

Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area.

Seismosaurus · 5th September 2003, 12:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Underemployed
Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area.

The ones I've looked at so far have been CTX, how do they rate? And what kind of problems do the cheaper ones tend to suffer from?

LW · 5th September 2003, 12:49 PM

Well, here's my modeline:

ModeLine "mymode" 176.0 1280 1344 1504 1728 1024 1025 1028 1072 +hsync +vsync

so I'm using 1280 x 1024 resolution. I also use anther computer with a hand-tuned resolution but I did it so long time ago that I can't remember the details anymore, it had somewhere around 1100 pixels horizontally .

Underemployed · 5th September 2003, 01:21 PM

The cheaper ones may not show any problems and, like most products, will probably last a fair time and enjoy a fault-free existence.

But if they don't - in the case of a flat screen, say they have a dead pixel - then you will not be able to return it. In fact, even on branded flat screens it is acceptable (by the industry at large and by the consumer standards authority I believe) for a screen to have up to EIGHT dead pixels before it can be returned under warranty. Unless they are clustered in the centre of the screen.

Due to high demand for flat screens, much of the stock that does not match strict quality controls will still make it to market. The cheaper you go, the more likely you will have a dead pixel develop early in the life of the monitor. Having a discoloured dot on the screen is no fun and even one is noticeable.

The XIOD name is Samsung and is quite good. Acer also do good flat screens for reasonable prices. Initial research of CTX indicates they are a quality manufacturer. They guarantee their 530 model is dead pixel-free.

If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see.

NightG1 · 7th September 2003, 04:15 PM

1280 X 1024 on a 19" ViewSonic A90f CRT that I am extremely disappointed with. I can not get the moire to cancel all the way to the edge of the screen. I had a Mitsubishi 900u that I loved until it went to that place monitors go when they die.

corplinx · 7th September 2003, 08:13 PM

I was using 1600x1200 on a nice 19 inch crt. However, I just switched to a 1280x1024 19 inch LCD. The difference is amazing. I can't believe the detail I was missing before. I was worried that 1280x1024 on such a large screen (19inch LCD has much more viewable space than a 19inch CRT) would be too big. However, its jussssssssssst right.

diddidit · 9th September 2003, 11:14 AM

1024x768 at home (15" flat-panel iMac), 1600x1200 at work (HP Kayak workstation, 21" monitor). As my eyes haven't kakked yet, I run the resolution as high as I can.

did

shanek · 9th September 2003, 08:22 PM

1024x768 on my home computer and my laptop, 1280x1024 at work on my graphics machine.

magimix · 10th September 2003, 03:38 AM

1280 x 1024 on a 19" CRT. For my easy-to-strain eyes, the best combination of high-res (relatively speaking of course) and screen size. I'd love to have a 21" monitor, because that would comfortably give me eye-strain free 1600 x 1200 res but I don't have room for a monitor that big :-/

BillyTK · 16th September 2003, 02:13 PM

1024 x 768px on our home 'puter, pseudo 1600 x 1200px at work (actually it's 1152 x 864px on a duel monitor set-up). As a rule I design web pages with relative sizings so they'll flow across any resolution screen, but if there's some overwhelming reason to go with a static layout I stick to a maximum width of 800px. But considering the combinations of screen resolutions, text sizings and *koff* idiosyncratic browser behaviour, all bets are off anyway.

And I hate "recommendations" for browser viewing. One site wouldn't let me view it because it was optimised for IE5+/NN4. I was using Netscape 6, duh.

DoNotDisturb · 17th September 2003, 03:36 PM

1024 because I have a ****** monitor (won't do more than 75Hz after 1024x768). Time to save up.

xouper · 20th September 2003, 02:23 AM

Whoever invented 1280 x 1024 should be shot. It should be 1280 x 960 to maintain the same 4:3 ratio as other resolutions. Take 640x480 and double it, and it ain't 1280 x 1024.

Quote:

Earthborn: For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages.

AAACCKKK, I hate sites that scale their images using IMG tag attributes. Please don't do that. Sometimes the slowdown (and jerkiness) in scrolling is obnoxiously noticeable even on a fast machine, since the browser usually scales dynamically as the page is scrolled. I hate that, and many professional web designers recommend against using the width and height attributes to scale images. Not to mention that I don't trust the browser to resample the image as accurately as my graphics editor. If screen size is that much of an issue to a particular page design, I recommend using server side scripting to serve up different pages for different resolutions.

[/rant]

Seismosaurus · 20th September 2003, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Underemployed
If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see.

Thanks for the advice, I was planning an online buy but I'm amazed they can refuse to take broken ones back. It'll be a shop buy for me for sure!

Yahweh · 20th September 2003, 06:48 PM

I happily cruise the internet at the always reliable 1024 x 768, 32 bit color. Nothing fancy for me...

Beanbag · 27th September 2003, 11:12 AM

Depends on the machine.

The third bedroom machine runs at 1280x1024, courtesy of the WONDERFUL Dell monitor I picked up used for $20 (US).

The living room machine runs at 1024x768, determined by the max resolution for the Samsung LCD monitor.

The Compaq laptop used for in-field photo downloading and editing is 1024x768.

The ancient but honorable HP laptop I lug back and forth to work, plus serves as the flying map display for my vehicle-mounted GPS system, runs at 800x600.

And of course I can't forget the truly ancient Compaq 286 laptop with the monochrome CGA display.

Regards;
Beanbag

Prospero · 29th September 2003, 02:14 PM

I'm quite happy with mylaptop's 1400x1050 screen. All things considered, I'm happy with it.

Freud	2	28.57%
Jesus	3	42.86%
Intresting Ian	2	28.57%
Voters: 7. You may not vote on this poll

4th September 2003, 12:58 PM	#1
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	What's your resolution? Whenever I've worked on web sites I've designed so that it's just about useable at 640x480, but primarily with 800x600 in mind. 1024x768 was fairly rare five or so years ago, but seems much more common now. So I was wondering, what do you use?
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

4th September 2003, 01:23 PM	#3
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,647	Where's 1152x864 ? Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well. I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution. Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh!
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

4th September 2003, 01:39 PM	#4
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Quote: Originally posted by Earthborn Where's 1152x864 ? Just make them look nice in all these resolutions. The JREF site does quite well. I especially hate those sites that are made for a specific resolution, that either leave enormous empty spaces in higher ones, or make you need to scroll sideways in lower resolution. Or those background pictures that are supposed to wide enough to only be tiled down, but are only 1024 pixels wide. Ugh! It's easy enough to be good in any size when you have a primarily text-based page like this one. But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge. You can avoid it by having multiple rows, but that eats into screen space that you want to use for the actual data.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

4th September 2003, 01:53 PM	#5
arcticpenguin woo ban clan Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 5,717	1280 x 1024 And it's a flat panel with a DVI connection.
	__________________ The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those who don't have it. - George Bernard Shaw

4th September 2003, 01:17 PM	#2
Skeptoid Graduate Poster Join Date: Sep 2002 Posts: 1,532	1024x768. It is my understanding that most web designers are optimizing for this resolution these days.

4th September 2003, 01:59 PM	#6
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,647	Quote: But for instance, if you have graphical buttons arranged in a row across the top of the page then somebody with their screen set too small will be left with buttons hanging off the edge. Ever heard of relative sizes?
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

4th September 2003, 02:01 PM	#7
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Quote: Originally posted by arcticpenguin 1280 x 1024 And it's a flat panel with a DVI connection. Another reason for asking is that it's about time to ditch my old CRT, so I'm casting my beady eye over 17 inch LCD monitors. So I'm jealous, but I may not be for much longer!
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

4th September 2003, 02:07 PM	#8
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	You did not list 1600 by 1200..... yuo aer not l33t enough d00d
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

4th September 2003, 02:31 PM	#9
Theodore Kurita Leader of the Draconis Combine Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 907	1280 x 960 High Res CRT

4th September 2003, 02:42 PM	#10
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Quote: Originally posted by Underemployed You did not list 1600 by 1200..... yuo aer not l33t enough d00d grumble grumble.. not enough options... grumble grumble... first time I've done a poll... grumble grumble... do better next time...
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

4th September 2003, 02:51 PM	#11
Rat Not bored. Never bored. Moderator Join Date: May 2003 Location: Leicester, UK Posts: 7,050	800x600 here, because I'm six feet from the monitor. 1280x1024 at work, where I'm two feet away. Distance from the monitor really makes a difference to the maximum practical res. I agree about sites catering for different resolutions. I went to a site to day that shot up a javascript popup telling me something like "This site is designed for minimum 1024x768 resolution. Please change your desktop resolution to see the full site". I though "nope, I'll shop somewhere they can be bothered to put some thought into design." I've done a fair amount of site design, and it's not difficult. If you're in one of those rare situations where circumstances mean it's not particularly practical to cater to low-res, knock up a quick script to show a differently laid-out page (using css) for the low-res browsers. Cheers, Rat.
	__________________ "Man muß den Menschen vor allem nach seinen Lastern beurteilen. Tugenden können vorgetäuscht sein. Laster sind echt." - Klaus Kinski UKLS 1988- Sitting on the fence throwing stones at both sides.

4th September 2003, 03:01 PM	#12
jj grumpy old skeptic Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Deep in the rain Posts: 18,491	1600x1200 screen res. With an active workspace around that.
	__________________ The Power to Quit

4th September 2003, 03:13 PM	#13
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	Quote: Originally posted by Earthborn Ever heard of relative sizes? Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics. It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that...
scribble Master Poster Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 2,696	__________________ "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true." - Homer Simpson "I was thinking about painting my house, but I was worried about how well the latex paint we bought would bond to the existing siding. So I got on the Interweb and searched for latex bondage."

4th September 2003, 03:39 PM	#14
ImpyTimpy Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 803	1280 x 1024 at home, flat screen CRT. That's the maximum resolution the monitor can do.
ImpyTimpy Muse Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 803	__________________ "You are a bunch of kook haters and a hate-group. " - the now gone Jedi Knight describing the board's attitude to dangerous and out of this world ideas.

4th September 2003, 04:16 PM	#15
WildCat NWO Master Conspirator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Albany Park, Chicago Posts: 48,983	1280 X 1024 @ 85 Hertz refresh rate, I could set it to 1600 X 1200 but that resolution only supports a 75 Hertz refresh rate which isn't as easy on the eyes.

4th September 2003, 04:26 PM	#16
Philip JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 473	1280x1024 on our laptop LCD set as the primary screen 1024x768 on a CRT set as a secondary screen for the laptop 1024x768 on our desktop Edited to add that, when I run Linux on my laptop, I use a resolution of 1400x1050
Philip JREF Kid Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 473

4th September 2003, 06:12 PM	#17
Earthborn Terrestrial Intelligence Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: Terra Firma Posts: 5,647	Quote: Relative sizes work well for text. Not so well for graphics. Ever tried to make an HTML document with relative sizes for text depending on screen resolution? It is very hard. For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages. Only problem you will face is with tables in Opera, as Opera always interprets percentages as percentages of the screenwidth, while other browsers interpret them as percentages of the width of the table cell. Quote: It's impossible to design a web site to look the same in all resolutions. Many screen resolutions have different aspect ratios - nothing at all you can do to get around that... But almost all resolutions common today have the same aspect ratio: 4x3. And if even if it hasn't, it shouldn't be such a problem, since you can always decide to only give the relative size for the width, ommiting the height. It will cause the picture to remain its own aspect ratio. That way, people using strange resolutions with different aspect ratios may have to scroll down a little, or will have a little extra space at the bottom of the screen.
	__________________ Perhaps nothing is entirely true; and not even that! Multatuli

4th September 2003, 06:18 PM	#18
Occasional Chemist Muse Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 513	What, no laptop users? My screen size is good ol' 800x600. Primarily, this is because my main computer is a subnotebook - the Thinkpad 240. Sweet machine, but the screen's small. That's the price you pay for a computer that weighs less than three pounds!
Occasional Chemist Muse Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 513	__________________ Warning: Can't connect to local MySQL server through socket '/var/lib/mysql/mysql.sock' (2) in /usr/local/apache/htdocs/vbulletin/admin/db_mysql.php on line 38

4th September 2003, 07:11 PM	#19
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	1280X1024 17" flat screen CRT. $99.99 after rebates. I done good.
Brian Graduate Poster Join Date: Jul 2001 Posts: 1,780	__________________ O' beautiful, for spacious skies But now those skies are threatening They're beating plowshares into swords For this tired old man that we elected king Armchair warriors often fail And we've been poisoned by these fairy tales The lawyers clean up all details Since daddy had to lie -Don Henley

4th September 2003, 07:31 PM	#20
Janus Thinker Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Springvale, VIC, AU Posts: 180	1600x1200 Mostly, 2048x1536 when I need to test > 120dpi res, or give my self eyestrain from the flicker.

5th September 2003, 09:56 AM	#21
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Speaking of getting a new monitor, does anybody have any reccomendations? I'm after a low end 17 inch LCD - price range about £250 - £300 (UK), but obviously I want the best quality and reliability I can get for that.
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

5th September 2003, 10:22 AM	#22
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area.
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

5th September 2003, 12:18 PM	#23
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Quote: Originally posted by Underemployed Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area. The ones I've looked at so far have been CTX, how do they rate? And what kind of problems do the cheaper ones tend to suffer from?
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul

5th September 2003, 12:49 PM	#24
LW Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: 60°N 25°E Posts: 2,800	Well, here's my modeline: ModeLine "mymode" 176.0 1280 1344 1504 1728 1024 1025 1028 1072 +hsync +vsync so I'm using 1280 x 1024 resolution. I also use anther computer with a hand-tuned resolution but I did it so long time ago that I can't remember the details anymore, it had somewhere around 1100 pixels horizontally .

5th September 2003, 01:21 PM	#25
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	The cheaper ones may not show any problems and, like most products, will probably last a fair time and enjoy a fault-free existence. But if they don't - in the case of a flat screen, say they have a dead pixel - then you will not be able to return it. In fact, even on branded flat screens it is acceptable (by the industry at large and by the consumer standards authority I believe) for a screen to have up to EIGHT dead pixels before it can be returned under warranty. Unless they are clustered in the centre of the screen. Due to high demand for flat screens, much of the stock that does not match strict quality controls will still make it to market. The cheaper you go, the more likely you will have a dead pixel develop early in the life of the monitor. Having a discoloured dot on the screen is no fun and even one is noticeable. The XIOD name is Samsung and is quite good. Acer also do good flat screens for reasonable prices. Initial research of CTX indicates they are a quality manufacturer. They guarantee their 530 model is dead pixel-free. If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see.
Underemployed Muse Join Date: Jan 2003 Posts: 764	__________________ There is no punchy, conclusive final sentence for this post.

7th September 2003, 04:15 PM	#26
NightG1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 321	1280 X 1024 on a 19" ViewSonic A90f CRT that I am extremely disappointed with. I can not get the moire to cancel all the way to the edge of the screen. I had a Mitsubishi 900u that I loved until it went to that place monitors go when they die.
NightG1 Critical Thinker Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 321	__________________ "If I've heard that once, I've heard it again"-- Paul the Samurai

7th September 2003, 08:13 PM	#27
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	I was using 1600x1200 on a nice 19 inch crt. However, I just switched to a 1280x1024 19 inch LCD. The difference is amazing. I can't believe the detail I was missing before. I was worried that 1280x1024 on such a large screen (19inch LCD has much more viewable space than a 19inch CRT) would be too big. However, its jussssssssssst right.
corplinx JREF Kid Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 8,944	__________________ In the tradition of "Stop Silvia!" Stop Hal Bidlack: http://skepticalcommunity.com/forums...hp?f=1&t=28671

9th September 2003, 11:14 AM	#28
diddidit Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 395	1024x768 at home (15" flat-panel iMac), 1600x1200 at work (HP Kayak workstation, 21" monitor). As my eyes haven't kakked yet, I run the resolution as high as I can. did
diddidit Critical Thinker Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 395

9th September 2003, 08:22 PM	#29
shanek by Charles M. Schulz Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 15,990	1024x768 on my home computer and my laptop, 1280x1024 at work on my graphics machine.
	__________________ "James Randi is awesome!" —Ian Bernard, primary host of Free Talk Live "It really does take people like Penn & Teller or James Randi to be able to see through these deceptions, and so those are perhaps the people we should be paying the most attention to." —Harry Browne, 4/10/2004 I know there is a lesson to be learned here somewhere, but I don't know what it is.

10th September 2003, 03:38 AM	#30
magimix New Blood Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 18	1280 x 1024 on a 19" CRT. For my easy-to-strain eyes, the best combination of high-res (relatively speaking of course) and screen size. I'd love to have a 21" monitor, because that would comfortably give me eye-strain free 1600 x 1200 res but I don't have room for a monitor that big :-/
magimix New Blood Join Date: Jun 2002 Posts: 18

16th September 2003, 02:13 PM	#31
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	1024 x 768px on our home 'puter, pseudo 1600 x 1200px at work (actually it's 1152 x 864px on a duel monitor set-up). As a rule I design web pages with relative sizings so they'll flow across any resolution screen, but if there's some overwhelming reason to go with a static layout I stick to a maximum width of 800px. But considering the combinations of screen resolutions, text sizings and koff idiosyncratic browser behaviour, all bets are off anyway. And I hate "recommendations" for browser viewing. One site wouldn't let me view it because it was optimised for IE5+/NN4. I was using Netscape 6, duh.
BillyTK Master Poster Join Date: May 2002 Posts: 2,625	__________________ Part-timer.

17th September 2003, 03:36 PM	#32
DoNotDisturb New Blood Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 21	1024 because I have a ****** monitor (won't do more than 75Hz after 1024x768). Time to save up.
DoNotDisturb New Blood Join Date: Sep 2003 Posts: 21	__________________ Mathematic Rules. [not a list of them ]

20th September 2003, 02:23 AM	#33
xouper Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,189	Whoever invented 1280 x 1024 should be shot. It should be 1280 x 960 to maintain the same 4:3 ratio as other resolutions. Take 640x480 and double it, and it ain't 1280 x 1024. Quote: Earthborn: For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages. AAACCKKK, I hate sites that scale their images using IMG tag attributes. Please don't do that. Sometimes the slowdown (and jerkiness) in scrolling is obnoxiously noticeable even on a fast machine, since the browser usually scales dynamically as the page is scrolled. I hate that, and many professional web designers recommend against using the width and height attributes to scale images. Not to mention that I don't trust the browser to resample the image as accurately as my graphics editor. If screen size is that much of an issue to a particular page design, I recommend using server side scripting to serve up different pages for different resolutions. [/rant]
xouper Banned Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,189

20th September 2003, 12:48 PM	#34
Seismosaurus Illuminator Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Banbury Posts: 3,540	Quote: Originally posted by Underemployed If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see. Thanks for the advice, I was planning an online buy but I'm amazed they can refuse to take broken ones back. It'll be a shop buy for me for sure!
	__________________ Promise of diamonds in eyes of coal She carries beauty in her soul