• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

What's your resolution?

I eat pizza now

  • Freud

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Jesus

    Votes: 1 100.0%

  • Intresting Ian

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    1
Speaking of getting a new monitor, does anybody have any reccomendations? I'm after a low end 17 inch LCD - price range about £250 - £300 (UK), but obviously I want the best quality and reliability I can get for that.
 
Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area.
 
Underemployed said:
Do not buy cheap LCD monitors, the initial savings are not worth the possible problems over the lifetime of the screen. Get a brand-name one with 3-yr warranty, you should be able to pick up a 17" TFT for £300-350 if you look at online shops and small shops in your area.
Click to expand...

The ones I've looked at so far have been CTX, how do they rate? And what kind of problems do the cheaper ones tend to suffer from?
 
Well, here's my modeline:

ModeLine "mymode" 176.0 1280 1344 1504 1728 1024 1025 1028 1072 +hsync +vsync

so I'm using 1280 x 1024 resolution. I also use anther computer with a hand-tuned resolution but I did it so long time ago that I can't remember the details anymore, it had somewhere around 1100 pixels horizontally .
 
The cheaper ones may not show any problems and, like most products, will probably last a fair time and enjoy a fault-free existence.

But if they don't - in the case of a flat screen, say they have a dead pixel - then you will not be able to return it. In fact, even on branded flat screens it is acceptable (by the industry at large and by the consumer standards authority I believe) for a screen to have up to EIGHT dead pixels before it can be returned under warranty. Unless they are clustered in the centre of the screen.

Due to high demand for flat screens, much of the stock that does not match strict quality controls will still make it to market. The cheaper you go, the more likely you will have a dead pixel develop early in the life of the monitor. Having a discoloured dot on the screen is no fun and even one is noticeable.

The XIOD name is Samsung and is quite good. Acer also do good flat screens for reasonable prices. Initial research of CTX indicates they are a quality manufacturer. They guarantee their 530 model is dead pixel-free.

If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see.
 
1280 X 1024 on a 19" ViewSonic A90f CRT that I am extremely disappointed with. I can not get the moire to cancel all the way to the edge of the screen. I had a Mitsubishi 900u that I loved until it went to that place monitors go when they die.
 
I was using 1600x1200 on a nice 19 inch crt. However, I just switched to a 1280x1024 19 inch LCD. The difference is amazing. I can't believe the detail I was missing before. I was worried that 1280x1024 on such a large screen (19inch LCD has much more viewable space than a 19inch CRT) would be too big. However, its jussssssssssst right.
 
1024x768 at home (15" flat-panel iMac), 1600x1200 at work (HP Kayak workstation, 21" monitor). As my eyes haven't kakked yet, I run the resolution as high as I can.

did
 
1024x768 on my home computer and my laptop, 1280x1024 at work on my graphics machine.
 
1280 x 1024 on a 19" CRT. For my easy-to-strain eyes, the best combination of high-res (relatively speaking of course) and screen size. I'd love to have a 21" monitor, because that would comfortably give me eye-strain free 1600 x 1200 res but I don't have room for a monitor that big :-/
 
1024 x 768px on our home 'puter, pseudo 1600 x 1200px at work (actually it's 1152 x 864px on a duel monitor set-up). As a rule I design web pages with relative sizings so they'll flow across any resolution screen, but if there's some overwhelming reason to go with a static layout I stick to a maximum width of 800px. But considering the combinations of screen resolutions, text sizings and *koff* idiosyncratic browser behaviour, all bets are off anyway.

And I hate "recommendations" for browser viewing. One site wouldn't let me view it because it was optimised for IE5+/NN4. I was using Netscape 6, duh.
 
1024 because I have a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ monitor (won't do more than 75Hz after 1024x768). Time to save up.:(
 
Whoever invented 1280 x 1024 should be shot. It should be 1280 x 960 to maintain the same 4:3 ratio as other resolutions. Take 640x480 and double it, and it ain't 1280 x 1024. :mad:


Earthborn: For graphics it is easy, as you can give the sizes in percentages.
Click to expand...
AAACCKKK, I hate sites that scale their images using IMG tag attributes. Please don't do that. Sometimes the slowdown (and jerkiness) in scrolling is obnoxiously noticeable even on a fast machine, since the browser usually scales dynamically as the page is scrolled. I hate that, and many professional web designers recommend against using the width and height attributes to scale images. Not to mention that I don't trust the browser to resample the image as accurately as my graphics editor. If screen size is that much of an issue to a particular page design, I recommend using server side scripting to serve up different pages for different resolutions.

[/rant]
 
Underemployed said:
If buying a flat screen, Insist on opening it up at the shop and viewing it in action (with a single-colour background) if possible. Any dead pixels will be clear to see.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, I was planning an online buy but I'm amazed they can refuse to take broken ones back. It'll be a shop buy for me for sure!
 
I happily cruise the internet at the always reliable 1024 x 768, 32 bit color. Nothing fancy for me...
 
Depends on the machine.

The third bedroom machine runs at 1280x1024, courtesy of the WONDERFUL Dell monitor I picked up used for $20 (US).

The living room machine runs at 1024x768, determined by the max resolution for the Samsung LCD monitor.

The Compaq laptop used for in-field photo downloading and editing is 1024x768.

The ancient but honorable HP laptop I lug back and forth to work, plus serves as the flying map display for my vehicle-mounted GPS system, runs at 800x600.

And of course I can't forget the truly ancient Compaq 286 laptop with the monochrome CGA display.

Regards;
Beanbag
 
I'm quite happy with mylaptop's 1400x1050 screen. All things considered, I'm happy with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom