Unlock all of us!3.86 / 5.00 30,714 Views
As DD's story comes to a close, another looms from the not-so-distant shadows....3.86 / 5.00 7,416 Views
Blast at rockets with awesome graphics and music3.90 / 5.00 8,355 Views
At 2/23/05 05:03 PM, Elfer wrote:At 2/22/05 07:47 PM, ArtistJ wrote: Really? Wow, that is shocking and surprising. I didnt think monitors still had 640x480 resolutions available.1024x768 is pretty standard, I don't see why you'd be INSULTED by people using it.
in fact, i myself am somewhat insulted by the concept that people would have resolutions even as small as 1024x768
Indeed. I'm insulted by the fact that he is "somewhat" insulted by the very CONCEPT, in fact!
As I said on page 3, I'm using 1024x768 on a 17" monitor.
I USED to use 1152x864 on a 19", but when that monitor died after 6 years of use, I went back to a 10 year old (but less extensively used) 17" monitor... and my girlfriend couldn't handle the strain of 1152x864 + that monitor.
To spell it out more clearly for ArtistJ, Tim, etc. etc.:
A) She has massive nearsightedness.
B) Even with her thick glasses, TOO HIGH of a resolution for this monitor size = pain
C) Pain in the eyes. Need I say more?
Lower resolutions means cramped situations and less room for windows, yes, but they also mean LESS EYEPAIN for people. Christ. Is that so hard to understand? O_o
Not everyone has a giant monitor or a good video card, you know.
That, too. But, IMO, that's secondary to eye pain lackingness.
For example, I mostly just use this for surfing the web, but I occasionally use programs with a lot of panels and menus, and anything below 1024x768 makes the workspace frustratingly small, especially in image-related programs.
And if you use your computer for graphics or art desinging of any sort, of course you'd need a very large resolution.
Shouldn't expect everyone to have the same needs and uses for their computer as you do though.
Exactly. Well said.
Anyway, I myself use 1152x864
Yes, I know it's a weird resolution, but it works for me.
It's not a weird resolution. As I just said, I used it for 6 years with a 19" monitor. It's the option between 1024x768 and 1280x1024... just like 800x600 is the option between 640x480 and 1024x768... so what's so weird about it? O_o
They're all at the same 4/3 (1.3333333333333333) ratio. Not all of them are perfectly round numbers like 800 and 600 are, either. That's the exception, in fact. So... again: what's weird about it? o_O
At 2/24/05 09:21 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: I would assume most people are using the 32-bit (or highest or "millions of colors") setting?
Nope. 16-bit (High Color) here. I think I had 32-bit for a time, but shifted to 16-bit either to use a higher resolution at some point in the past, or perhaps I had some problems with certain games or something. I can't personally tell the difference between the two during normal computer usage, so... yeah.
This computer is 7.5 years old, as well, and there's no reason to pump many options up to the "max quality/slowest performance" type setting, either.
Finally: 32-bit is listed as (True Color) in my display settings tab, BTW, neither highest nor millions is mentioned.