1280x1024 @ desktop , and the monitor is capable of only 60hz at that resolution. I am one of those people who gets irritating eyes of higher update-rate than 60hz, and I know some other people that have this problem too...
<!--QuoteBegin-Sizer+Sep 30 2004, 03:52 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sizer @ Sep 30 2004, 03:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1280x1024 will fit my monitor perfectly, however, x960 can't stretch out to the full horizontal length. Doesn't make sense. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Same for me. I use 1280x1024 for eveything. Makes aliens bigger targets too.
probably wil run HL2 at 1280x960 though. Unless it runs smoothly at 1600x1200.
BF:V runs at full settings at 1600x1200, and a nice fps too.
<3 HIS excalibur X800Pro VIVO
I wouldn't mind one of <a href='http://www.go-l.com/monitors/grand_canyon/features/index.htm' target='_blank'>These</a> though <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
This is a discussion of 5:4 vs. 4:3 ratio screen resolutions.
This is not a "what's your desktop resolution?" thread. If it were, it'd get closed because that's lame. Nobody cares what resolution you run at, except you so that you can show off your graphics card.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1280x960x16@85 ftw. Who the hell needs a 32 bit desktop? As for games, whatever runs. First priority though is the correct 4:3 ratio.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hope your not serious. There is absolutely no difference in speed, it looks MUCH better(any kind of images or video needs 24/32-bit to not look ugly). Who the hell uses 16-bits when you get 24 or 32 for free?
<!--QuoteBegin-coil+Sep 30 2004, 07:25 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (coil @ Sep 30 2004, 07:25 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This is a discussion of 5:4 vs. 4:3 ratio screen resolutions.
This is not a "what's your desktop resolution?" thread. If it were, it'd get closed because that's lame. Nobody cares what resolution you run at, except you so that you can show off your graphics card. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> But people should care that I run in 1024x768. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Memory. Some games look weird in 16 bit, but why would I need 32 bit for Word, or looking at jpeg images, or watching a low-res highly-compressed DivX?
The much bigger issue, I think, is how dominant the 1280x1024 resolution is among people who mainly have 4:3 monitors, not 5:4. I mean, whatever the software perceives as a perfect circle will look squashed on your screen. It's the deathblow to wysiwyg.
<!--QuoteBegin-lolfighter+Sep 30 2004, 11:51 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (lolfighter @ Sep 30 2004, 11:51 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Memory. Some games look weird in 16 bit, but why would I need 32 bit for Word, or looking at jpeg images, or watching a low-res highly-compressed DivX? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> A better question is why not? Unless you have a 6+ year old computer, it wont make a big performance difference.
Comments
1024x768 @ ingame, sometimes desktop-resolution.
32-bit color, because I have no option for 24-bit, and for some odd reason, my desktop looks quite patchy with 16-bit.
I use the same for games as well, as Alt+Tab switching is faster when the display modes are exactly the same.
Same for me. I use 1280x1024 for eveything. Makes aliens bigger targets too.
probably wil run HL2 at 1280x960 though. Unless it runs smoothly at 1600x1200.
BF:V runs at full settings at 1600x1200, and a nice fps too.
<3 HIS excalibur X800Pro VIVO
I wouldn't mind one of <a href='http://www.go-l.com/monitors/grand_canyon/features/index.htm' target='_blank'>These</a> though <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<b>1024x768</b>
This is not a "what's your desktop resolution?" thread. If it were, it'd get closed because that's lame. Nobody cares what resolution you run at, except you so that you can show off your graphics card.
Hope your not serious. There is absolutely no difference in speed, it looks MUCH better(any kind of images or video needs 24/32-bit to not look ugly). Who the hell uses 16-bits when you get 24 or 32 for free?
This is not a "what's your desktop resolution?" thread. If it were, it'd get closed because that's lame. Nobody cares what resolution you run at, except you so that you can show off your graphics card. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
But people should care that I run in 1024x768. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html//emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The much bigger issue, I think, is how dominant the 1280x1024 resolution is among people who mainly have 4:3 monitors, not 5:4. I mean, whatever the software perceives as a perfect circle will look squashed on your screen. It's the deathblow to wysiwyg.
A better question is why not? Unless you have a 6+ year old computer, it wont make a big performance difference.