For me I would go for 1024 X 768

Anyway can it max out more than 1600 X 1200? and which is the max?

I have a 17 inch monitor with resolutions of 1280 X 1024.

At work, my workstation has a 17" monitor and I run it at 1280 X 1024.

As for maximum resolutions, it really does depend on the monitor and graphics card you're using...and the drivers also make a big difference. Here at home, my 22" monitor on an old nVidia GeForce3 card ((yeah, gotta upgrade sometime)), seems to have different max resolutions every time nVidia release a new driver. While at the moment, I can set it to 1920x1440 using 56.64 drivers, the 56.65 drivers only had a max resolution of 1792x1344. It tends to jump around for some reason. Nonetheless, I run at 1600x1200 so it's no big deal and honestly, high resolutions only really matter ((for the hardcore)) in games.

I have mine set to 1024 X 768 for my 17''

1024x768x32 @ 85hz

Ditto.. Me too..

Chris.

You never, I repeat never use the 1280 X 1024 on any moniter. It has an incorrect aspect ratio and pixels will be distorted.

How many hertz do TFT or LCD pannels run at?!

Chris.

I've never heard of that before... where did you hear/read that from?

They talk about it quite often in the OT thread over at Pixelation a pixel art community, where distortion really matters when your working pixel by pixel. Because as you probably know, the ratio normal TV's and moniters use is 4:3, while that resolution is 5:4.

Well, thats intresting. I prefer to use 1280x1024 myself... i've nevered noticed a ratio difference, considering i am even a web designer. Things like that would obviosuly seem like they would screw up the layout when you have other system not only with a different res, but a different aspect ratio.

Thanks for the Info. Shun Di

And me!


They generally "run" at 60-85hz, but refresh rate doesn't make any difference on an LCD...it's pixel response time there, which is a hardware feature.



It's interesting you should say that...because this LCD monitor that I'm on at work has a native resolution of 1280x1024...

Sure, you'll get some stretching depending on the monitor, but then no monitor is perfectly 4:3 either. Me, I think they should have gone with the golden ratio, or roughly .618 ...lol

Well, my 17-incher runs at 1024x768x16-bit @ 85 Hz.
That's simply bcos that's a comfortable res and at good refresh.
Otherwise, when seriously demanding graphics drop my way, I see them at 1152x864x32-bit @ 75 Hz.
Although 1280x1024 is a supported resolution, I don't use it for I end up with the refresh-rate too low (60 Hz).

BTW, I seem to have an interesting extra resolution offered, how many more of you have that that capability? I'm able to drive up to : 1400x1050 @ 60 Hz.
Not very easy on the eyes, I must say!

I've ran my screen on 1280x1024 @ 60 Hz for years now.. never had a problem with my eyes nor my head.. and I don't notice flickering or whatever you call it. Only if I look at it with the corners of my eye, I can see it, but only barely even so. Soo... I'd say 60 Hz isn't that bad. My TV runs at 50 Hz...

Prolly you got used to 60Hz - I won't, cause I love my eyes. Do please have concern about your eyes, because 60 Hz is actually quite strainful for them (ask any doctor). Health-care is a booming industry now, and we wouldn't like to add to their profits, just not right now .

A display frequency of 50Hz for a TV is very good - you view it from a distance. A CRT monitor, on the other hand, is stared/drooled-at from very close by! OK, I've gone sufficiently off-topic, out of concern for you, lets get back please.

I know it's not good.. it's just that I CAN'T stand any lower resolutions. It makes me nuts trying to fit all the stuff I need into a small 1024x768 field.

fourth that!

I don't care how crammed it gets, I just won't go any higher than 1028x768, or lower than 32-bit true colour at 85 hz.

On 17" (work) and 19" (home), its 1024x767.
On my 15,4" laptop, its 1920x1200

1152x864 @85hz here. I like 1280x1024 @75hz but I cant read the text on a 17'' monitor. Maybe i need Glasses?

I'd vote for "not use a 17" monitor" but it's not there (too small).

1024x768x32 @ 85hz =17"
1600x1200 @85hz 21"
sometime's i will run @ 1856x1392@72hz

The "correct" resolution for a 17" CRT is 1024x768 (aspect ratio 4:3), however for an LCD the "correct" resolution should be 1280x1024 (aspect ratio 5:4) because of the larger screen area.

Well, I have a 19'' and I always use 1280X1024. it's what I am used to. Sheesh, anymore than that and I think my desktop icons would be too small and watching a 640X480 WMV video in full screen would make it look preeeetty bad.

lol.... u ppl use 17'' inch monitor's ??

You're still in the dark ages then...

The resolution depends on the aspect ratio, but you don't need to know that much about aspects.

When you adjust, drag the meter, your sttings in windows the picture of the aspect of your monitor is represented for you.

You need to know what the manufacturer suggests as the "Native Resolution."

For Example. a 4:3 aspect monitor best resolution will be differ from a 5:4 aspect monitor.

The specs on your monitor should tell you the aspect ratio.

You can use the pythagorean therom to figure out the aspect ratio.

A^2+B^2=C^2 for a 4:3 sapect = 4in for 3in ht. The reason most tv's are 4:3 is the 3-4-5 number relatationship. 3^2+4^2=5^2 or 9+16=25.

It is hard to tell the difference between 4:3 ratio and 5:4 ratio by just looking. These are standard screens.



4:3 Aspect 9+16=25
15" A+B=15
17" A+B=17
19" A+B=19

5:4 Aspect 16+25=41
15" A+B=15
17" A+B=17 W= 13.375^2 + 10.75^2= 17.16 I used crude measurements. I use a 1280 X 1024 is the Native Resoultion 13.375/10.75=1.244 close to 1.23

the 16:9 is HDTV standard, not necessarily widescreen standard.

more math
http://www.andrewduncan.ws/Aspect/Aspect.html

Just email me with your measurements, if you want clearer asnswer.

There are other considerations as well. Video memory and card resolution capabilities.

1280*960*32 @ 72Hz

I can't really notice the difference between 72Hz and anything higher. Go lower though, and things start to hurt after about 20 mins...

1024 X 768 @ 80Hz

1024 X 768 @ 60Hz

I'm at 60Hz because if I go any higher my monitor gets this wierd black shadowy thing on the left side, anybody have an idea of what that is?

id say 1024x768 all the way but thats my fav on any monitor im running a 19" samsung right now

on my old pc a 17" crt monitor,
1024x768x32 @ 114 (or 116, can't remember)
And yes, I DO notice the difference between 85 and 114 (114 is just the max I can get with the monitor )

On this pc, a 17" LCD
1280x1024x32 @ 75

1280x800

I have a widescreen laptop

17"... Please...

Give me a 19" LCD or a 21" CRT

If only I could afford a dual-display

I have two 17" monitors; one CRT and one LCD.

The CRT is a Philips Brilliance 17A, which is 4:3. I typically use these resolutions:
1280x960 32-bit 75Hz -- desktop
1600x1200 32-bit 60Hz -- games

I have also played with these widescreen resolutions (shrinking the screen vertically so it's letterboxed):
1920x1080 32-bit 60Hz -- 1080P
1920x1200 32-bit 60Hz -- maximum resolution

The LCD is also a Philips (not sure the model) with a 5:4 aspect ratio and a 1280x1024 native resolution, so I run 1280x1024 32-bit 75Hz on that.

I agree, it's a terrible idea to run a 5:3 resolution on a 4:3 screen, and I really wish they'd never invented the 1280x1024 resolution in the first place. I wish I had a 1600x1200 LCD, but that'd cost too much.

gotta be 1280 x 1024.

i generaly choose 1024 X 768

but i dont mind 1280 X 1024
i usually choose this when i run out of space on the desktop

800 X 600 is horrible and 640 X 480 is really really horrible
my monitor doesnt support over 1280 X 1024

1024 x 768 @ 85Hz
But I've got a 19" Philips CRT running 1280 x 1024 @ 85Hz.

Currently using 1280 X 1024 on my 17" monitor.

I use dual 17" CRTs, both set at 1024 x 768 x 32 @ 85Hz.

I use 1280x960 at home because 1280x1024 doesn't look right for some reason. At work I roll 1280x2048!

My big screen died so I gotta use a 17inch one for now and its set at 1280 X 1024.