PDA

View Full Version : Whats your Resolution



Ronin055
11th July 2003, 17:39
On your moniter I mean. What resolution do you have your desktop set at??


Just wondering cause I just set mine up from 800x600 and this feel really small to me.

But were doing our web-site over and Im trying to figure how to best serve our viewers.

Thanks for your input.

:smilejapa

Shitoryu Dude
11th July 2003, 18:26
800 X 600 is OK for 11" monitors or smaller. Unless you need glasses set it for 1100 or 1200 and enjoy.

:beer:

bgigas
11th July 2003, 19:22
1280x960.

Good luck with the website.

Charles Mahan
11th July 2003, 19:29
1600x1200 :D

A. M. Jauregui
11th July 2003, 23:05
1920 x 1200, 76 Hz .

Shitoryu Dude
11th July 2003, 23:18
I think the next question should be "How big is your monitor?"

I'm running a piddly 19" screen, waiting for honking-big plasma screens to get somewhat affordable.

:beer:

A. M. Jauregui
12th July 2003, 00:16
23"

(It has been too long to have just edited that into my previous post. :( )

MKL
12th July 2003, 10:04
Docked 21" tube with 1600*1200
Undocked 14.1" 1400*1050

Shinsen
12th July 2003, 13:49
The problem with asking a question like this is that it is akin to asking "how big is your penis?".
Those who are reasonably well-endowed will be happy to share the info while those who aren't so well blessed will tend to shut up about it so you may get a skewed picture of what other people have got.
That's why I ain't gonna tell you..........

Ronin055
12th July 2003, 16:58
1024 x 768. I just moved up to this like two days ago. Ive been at 800 x 600.

My machine can handle it higher. But Ive got a 17" moniter, and if I go higher the clock gets so small its not funny. I think Im comfortable with this resolution and I dont really see the benifit(sp) of going any higher.

When designing the site we have access to the stats of the people who are loggin on. You wouldnt belive how many people are still using Win95. Im feeling Archaic with 98 still on my system. But indeed not every one has XP Pro on their systems with 36" Plasma Screens set at 9000000x5000000 Resolution. Infact the ungodly resolution claims Im seeing here I would think are the minority. Not that I dont belive them, just that they are the extreme end of the spectrem.

Really, I want to hear from more people and what they are REALLY using. Its not shamefull. Its real. And this is research so we can make our site better. You wouldnt want to logg on and see "you must have your resolution set at nine million to view this site" So let us know what you really use so we can make it for you. That is to say a comprimise for everyone.

aemon_
12th July 2003, 18:46
my screen is at 1024 x 768, but i always design sites for 800 x 600. that way, it looks good at high res, and can still see it at 800 x 600. my $0.02

later

A. M. Jauregui
12th July 2003, 23:02
Penis what penis? Anyway size is not everything there either.

As for my resolution of 1920 x 1200 just about anything else does not look as nice (literally) on my 23” Apple Cinema “Thin film transistor (TFT) active-matrix liquid crystal display“ (I wish it was one of the huge plasma tvs).

I also have an old cracked cases, missing pixels, grungy CRT Apple Multi Scan 15” on my old computer (which I use as an mp3 server for my stereo) that is set to 1024 x 786, 60 Hz at thousands of colors.

Striking Hand
12th July 2003, 23:36
1024 x 768.

For both my main-pc and Notebook both 14".

I think most people will run on this as, AFAIK, LCD screens like on notebooks and similar often got probs with highers resolutions.

Designing for 800x600 is advised not only to cater for lower resolutions, but it also allows you to show the full contents when the browser is not maximised.

kenshorin
14th July 2003, 15:18
1152 x 864.

It just looks better on my monitor for some reason.

PwarYuex
15th July 2003, 08:36
1600 x 1200. For both screens. I run dual-screen.

Two 19" Plasma. I like it because I play heaps of online games and I have one screen with the game, and one showing the desktop. I don't like windows splitting the "screen" in half to suit both screens. I have them operating like they are separate PCs.

I got them from a friend that works at Activision. They're second-hand, but they're radiation-free, and they have a better refresh rate than LCD. I got them for the price of a 17" LCD...

We should start a thread about what your computer is. Just a note, what are you running? I've got P4 3.04, 1 Gig of RAM, Raedeon 9800 pro, 32 + 15 Gig Hard Drive.

This is where all my money goes...

Striking Hand
15th July 2003, 08:53
PC 1: Dell Tower 500Mhz, 512MB, 3GB HD
used to drive to the printer, Scanner and other stuff for the LAN at home.
Usually used for mail checking and Internet access.

PC 2: HP Notepbook 800Mhz, 25MB, 9GB HD. Wife's PC.

PC 3: IBM T30, 1.6GHZ, 512MB, 30GB HD. Machine I use for work at the Company.
Owned by me.

Games don't play much. PC 1 got a 3D graphics card in it, but can't remember what it is. :)

A. M. Jauregui
15th July 2003, 09:29
For general computing while in my bedroom.
23” Apple Cinema Display
Dual 1.25GHz PowerPC G4, 1024MB DDR333 SDRAM, 160GB Ultra ATA drive, 40GB ATA drive, 9GB firewire drive , SuperDrive DVD Burner, NVIDIA GeForce4 Titanium.

Server, mp3 player, whatever. In the living room.
15" Apple Multi Scan
533 Mhz PowerPC G4, 384MB PC100, 60GB ATA drive, 30GB ATA drive, PlxWriter 12/10/30 S, 9GB SCSI III drive, 4GB Firewire drive, USB floppy, NVIDIA GeForce2 MX.

cguzik
15th July 2003, 16:38
1600 x 1200 on a 24" Sony Multiscan GDM-W900 monitor.

IBM Thinkpad T23, 1.1Ghz Pentium III, 256MB, 20GB.

The monitor goes to 1920 x 1200 but the Thinkpad's built-in video won't support beyond 1600 x 1200.

PwarYuex
16th July 2003, 06:00
(To A. Jauregui)
May I ask why you have such an expensive computer? I read your profile and it doesn't really tell much. If it's for personal use, or for business which you need more power, why dont you have a non-mac?

A. M. Jauregui
16th July 2003, 06:39
I keep telling myself that my next computer is going to be a PC but growing up in an Apple Computer household I end up going back for more. So far the only computer that I actually paid for is the 533 Mhz system the previous ones and the current dual 1.25 Ghz have been bought for me by family.

I really do not use computer for much, at my prior place of employment they provided me with a computer system, as a history student I really do not need more then a simple word processor and internet terminal, and as a part time teacher I really do not need it at all (there are computers at the school that I could use for drafting quiz and I have a paper grade book [along with a copy on my palm PDA]).

I do use my aunt’s PC based laptop, an eMachine M5305. Specs: 1.8 Ghz Mobile AMD Athlon XP-M 2200+, 512MB DDR RAM, 15.4-inch LCD (1,280-by-800), ATI Radeon IGP 320M graphics, 40GB hard drive, DVD/CD-RW drive. It is not a bad computer at all, plus it gets along with my Macs fairly well. I treat the eMachine like I own it but it is hers - that is with I did not list it.

Ronin055
16th July 2003, 15:52
Ok we have adjusted the resolution and added a guest book. Pics to come in the days ahead and, a bunch of new information.

Hope you like it.