[roger04]

For me I would go for 1024 X 768

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

[trev]

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

[CDog]

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.

[yiang]

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

[Chaosratt]

1024x768x32 @ 85hz

[CuBie]

Chaosratt, on May 29 2004, 01:25 PM, said:

1024x768x32 @ 85hz

Ditto.. Me too..

Chris.

[Shun Di]

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

[CuBie]

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

Chris.

[FuzzBall]

Shun Di, on Jun 5 2004, 07:12 AM, said:

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

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

[Shun Di]

FuzzBall, on Jun 5 2004, 07:30 AM, said:

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.

[FuzzBall]

Shun Di, on Jun 5 2004, 07:54 AM, said:

FuzzBall, on Jun 5 2004, 07:30 AM, said:

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...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

[Phyridean]

Quote

QUOTE (Chaosratt @ May 29 2004, 01:25 PM)
1024x768x32 @ 85hz 


Ditto.. Me too..

Chris.

And me!

Quote

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

Chris.

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.

Quote

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

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

[prathapml]

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!

[DarkPhoenix]

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...

[prathapml]

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.

[DarkPhoenix]

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.

[nolookingca]

Phyridean, on Jul 15 2004, 04:43 PM, said:

Quote

QUOTE (Chaosratt @ May 29 2004, 01:25 PM)
1024x768x32 @ 85hz 


Ditto.. Me too..

Chris.

And me!

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.

[big_gie]

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

[ChunkDog]

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

[CoffeeFiend]

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