Manage your team of adventurers as you raid the local dungeon for treasure!4.48 / 5.00 19,114 Views
Defend your castle against countless hordes of monsters.3.82 / 5.00 10,779 Views
Turn on all tiles!3.68 / 5.00 2,689 Views
Either 1024x768 or 1152x864.
Anything bigger than that hurts my eyes.. (the width of this moniter's viewing screen is only 13")
I use a 1152x864 Res. on a 21" mon
But view NG and others through a browser window set open to about 900x400. Would go to a larger viewable area If I had to. Though it is handy to keep the window as small as I can.
At 2/24/05 11:37 AM, Freakapotimus wrote: Everyone should see little Gregory's cuteness!
lol @ little Gregory! The world would be a better place if we all knew little Gregory.
At 2/24/05 01:42 PM, Incredible_Hulk wrote: lol @ little Gregory! The world would be a better place if we all knew little Gregory.
There will be plenty of photos of him posted on my website. Of course!
Quote of the day: @Nysssa "What is the word I want to use here?" @freakapotimus "Taint".
I'm at 1280x960. Yeesh, you guys still at 800x600 really ought to switch to a larger resolution or a get a better monitor if you can't.
1680x1050 here. If you are still running at 800x600 please for the love of... Buy a new monitor! Last I checked the calendar it was 2005!
At 2/23/05 07:41 PM, EarthCrisis wrote:At 2/23/05 04:16 PM, JesZ wrote: you´r are not the only one, tom..How can your monitor have 3 dimensions? 800 pixels wide, by 600 pixels high and 32 pixels deep is impossible with a montior. Isn't it?
i use 800x600x32 when i play Duke Nukem 3D and other games =D
Your response is the funniest thing I have read all day. Thanks for the laugh!
Alright, I just wanna start off saying that anyone using an 800x600 resolution is either stupid, can't read, or needs to get with the current times, not 10 years ago (sarcasm). I use 1400x1050 on my laptop so the site would obviously not be a problem to me if it is upgraded. I feel the Newgrounds Webmasters shouldn't care whether people use 800x600 or anything less because people should get with the times. Come on. Especially because Newgrounds will one day take over the world. Why should they take our needs into consideration? Newgrounds, I love you. Do whatever the crap you want.
P.S. I agree with some previous posts that the extra space on the sides is pretty bad awesome and makes it me want to spooge all over the screen. I love NG.
hiii i just sign in when i want to reply this messages
im from malaysia
ive just notice this website not long ago
its very interesting, ive intro this to some of my friends in the asia
just to let u know my resolution is less than (stated as below)
At 2/22/05 07:39 PM, TomFulp wrote: Quick question: Does anyone out there have a screen resolution LESS THAN 1024x768? For example, 800x600 or 640x480? If so, please respond to this thread so I can get a feel.
Supposedly, 20% of web surfers still use resolutions less than 1024. I'm just not sure if any of them are Newgrounds visitors! IGN.COM is 1024 and one of the top 200 sites on the web, so I'm assuming it hasn't been a problem for them.
If we are going to consider expanding to 1024, I want to be sure we aren't screwing over a lot of people.
I have a good screen res but lots of people i know go no newgrounds at school, and school computers have crap monitors 600x400 or around there so it could screw it up for bored kids at school
Tom, if you are reading this right now, I think my mission would have been a sucess. I am thinking of the site when I say this and I think that NG has a hell of a lot of great work. But to the people who havent been here for so long, unlike me (even though I just got an account). I feel that we have to post more of the old good flashes, for example : ''Immortal Warrior". We should have one day where we post all of the greatest old flashes on the front page, IN tribute to the people who worked so hard to make them. Mainly because some of the greatest old flashes now can only be reached by the seach bar. Which I think is really stupid. Not that I have any authority over this, just being a fan of NG. Its just a suggestion, but I think good authors like Paul Flores should get recognition, but not just him, the top ''10'' should have their favorite or best flashes put on the front page.
yeh, i do (kinda)
Egotist, n. A person of low taste, more interested in himself than in me.
RE: Bacon Ranch Commercial
My family is totally offended by your commercial clearly directed to a younger male audience. The women, their costumes, wigs, and down to the finger licking ”milk” with the other psychological innuendos it was like a cheep porn with food. Very daisy duke, with a bit of Hee Haw, and the playboy bunnies mixed with a couple buckets of finger sucking good sperm, oops Ranch Sauce! Which part will the cheerleaders shave? The oysters perhaps, or a nice bearded clam. You just lost several customers, while offending millions more You made a big sexual joke out of burger King. I guess you cannot sell to children like Mac Donald’s, as they say, you are number two after all!!
i still use small resolutions, but maybe i can adjust..... naw, too lazy.
Personally I use any resolution over 1000 (I have several computers), but it's not like those 800 freaks will have enough space on their window to read this front page entry.
I have 1024 and find it great but i think you should have a vote so then it can be decided if it should stay 800 but personally i have no problems with it right now
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.