Quote from clp :

I run 1920x1440 on my primary 21" CRT and 1600x1200 on my secondary 19" CRT

since the original post was in relation to web design..

one of my all time pet annoyances is web sites/designers that insist on maximising my browser window.. i mean, seriously, .. do they really think i want to run a browser in a 1920x1440 window? illepall

CLP

I agree @ work I have a 19" TFT @ 1280x1024 and I do not run my browser on full screen, but at home running 1024x768 17" CRT I do.

now how can I swap these without my company noticing ....... :P

I use 1280x1024, but I never allow websites to stretch over more than 1024x768. And that ony goes for sites with loads of content where I need the space. And I only do that seldomly. The optimal size for a website displayed on a multitasking system is 800x600.

Vain

1280x1024 on my 17 inch LCD

1600x1200 when I don't accidentally corrupt my windows partition from typing one wrong number in parted >_<
ATM its 140x50 (think text based)

Quote from OPK :

Yeah, same here.

A shame most modern LCD monitors are using 1280x1024 :/

That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

My 4 year old laptop is a 15" LCD display and reaches 1600 x 1200 that I use all the time. Basically, if you get an LCD display that can't go any higher than that, and at that size, then you didn't pay enough for a good display

I run 1152x864 @ 32bit colour on Free Dell 17" I run web browser maxaimised.

Quote from geeman1 :

That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

Yeah, but it looks a bit odd in shape compared to my 16:10 notebook screen.
Especially when watching a DVD movie...the screen is jut not "filled"

1280 X 1024 on my 17" TFT.

Quote from mrodgers :

Kid's PC running their games needs to be 640x480 @ 256 colors on 15 inch CRT, OUCH.
My home PC running LFS mainly is 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 17 inch CRT.
Office PC for email, data entry, etc 1024x768 @ 16 bit on 19 inch CRT
Working PC used to run Rockwell Software to control equipment is 1280x1024 @ 16 bit on a 21 inch flatscreen CRT.

16 bit? Why?

I dont understand how someone can use 16 bit, I mean ... it looks really ugly and 32 bit has absulutely the same performance.

Mmmm, well for medium-performance systems, it can help, but only by a little bit. I noticed a lot of the older Nvidia cards have better performance when running in 16-bit on games, and if you try and use 32-bit... the game will be slower. But ever since I've had an ATI card, 32-bit doesn't make a difference .

I run my 4 year old 17' Packard Bell monitor at 1152x864x32. In 1024x768 mode everthing is allready to big for me . And 1280x960 is no option because its at 60hz, i get major headaches after half an hour :Eyecrazy: Also i run my games at the same resolution so when i hit "quit" or hit a game on my desktop it immediatly jumps back to windows.

I'm running 1024x768 at home, and 1680x1050 on this badboy I'm using at college... Damn this is a nice computer..(Acer Ferrari 4005WLMi)

MAGGOT

Quote from Tweaker :

Mmmm, well for medium-performance systems, it can help, but only by a little bit. I noticed a lot of the older Nvidia cards have better performance when running in 16-bit on games, and if you try and use 32-bit... the game will be slower. But ever since I've had an ATI card, 32-bit doesn't make a difference .

Maybe it's true if you use a GeForce 1 LOL (aka GeForce GTX).
Already on a 2 MX with 64MB there is absolutely no difference

I remember that my Voodoo Banshee got like 2-3 fps less in Rollcage though

I have now 3 15" monitors, one of them is TFT others are CRT. So 3x 1024x768 (or 3072x768)for me. Just got these today, now I am trying to learn how to use all this space

Quote from ORION :

Maybe it's true if you use a GeForce 1 LOL (aka GeForce GTX).
Already on a 2 MX with 64MB there is absolutely no difference

I remember that my Voodoo Banshee got like 2-3 fps less in Rollcage though

Well not quite, because I own a GeForce 2 GTS Pro 64mb in my old desktop sitting here (now used for storage) and I remember that when playing games like Halflife and other earlier titles, running in 16-bit would increase your FPS and in return get smoother gameplay, at the cost of nasty looking fades, but oh well. Other games I used to play, like some motorcycle games, which had just come out in the Geforce 3 era, my Geforce 2, as well as my 2 friends who had similar spec systems could not run the game at 32 bit (Motocross Mania was the game I think).

But like I said, now we don't have a problem with it really, new cards can run 32-bit no problems.

Since when did Voodoo cards support more than 16bit?
My Voodoo 3 didn´t.

And I think they implemented this with the Voodoo 4 or 5

Anyways... thanks for the replies, got more votes than I expected But keep voting if you may/can!

When 32bit is turned instead of 16bit on on my onboard chip, FPS is cut in half when playing games the worst example had to be the old 99' Unreal Tournament, the game was unplayable at 320x200x32, while 1024x768x16 is silky smooth.

1280x1024 on 17" LCD.

Thats native res for 17" LCD's and looks best. Also spplies to some 19" LCD's, but some are higher.

Native res means that anything below that will be distorted and blocky, since the screen has to emulate that res on its native res - being 1280x1024. Always run LCD's in their native resolution for best results. Sometimes its hard in game cos some peoples graphics cards cant run that high, but if you can afford an LCD, surely you can afford a 6800 or x800

Quote from vpr01 :

1280x1024 on 17" LCD.

Thats native res for 17" LCD's and looks best. Also spplies to some 19" LCD's, but some are higher.

The standard has been bumped up now and is 1600 x 1200 or higher. But like I mentioned before, even my 15" UXGA+ LCD on my laptop has a resolution of 1600 x 1200, and that is its native res according to Dell. When I ordered that screen, it was very expensive.

The native res you get is mostly dependant on the quality of the screen, when they rate it (XGA, UXGA, UXGA+, SXGA, etc)...

ah, new standard. i usually keep up with these things! you all get my drift though!

Quote from geeman1 :

That's no shame. 17" and 19" (and other sizes too) LCD monitors actually are 5:4 like 1280x1024, so the pixels actually are square and the picture is not distorted.

1280x1024 does not translate to a 5:4 aspect ratio. 1280x960 does though, which is why I use it @ 85Hz on my 19" Hansol CRT monitor.

1280x960 is 4:3 like your CRT.