What's your main computer's screen resolution?

[rired48]

1600x1200 on a Dell/Phillips 2001FP 20" with a EVGA nVidia GTX280 video card.

[keyb_gr]

1280x1024 on 19". A yet larger screen is of no use to me, since I can barely see all of this at once anyway and keep losing track of the mouse pointer once in a while as-is. (Team 1ft viewing distance and large fonts.) For work, there currently is a 20" with 1600x1200 and font sizes cranked up.

[ozar]

2560x1600 on Dell 3008 30" LCD.

Wow, that's huge!

Just curious... do you have to keep a large distance between you and the monitor to make it usable?  Also, do you notice any distortion or change in color near the outer edges?

[huha]

1680x1050 on my Thinkpad Z60m (15.4"), which is quite nice for getting some work done, although the panel itself is exceptionally bad in terms of colour reproduction. Plus, it's quite dim.
3360x1050 via two Dell 2007WFP, driven by the Thinkpad when it's docked. Too bad the dock has just one DVI connector; signal degradation on the monitor connected via the analogue connection is noticeable, but usually not bothersome, although I like to use the digitally connected monitor more.

-huha

[bigpook]

1920 x 1080 on a 24" asus. Not so sure if I like the wide screen though.

[SUPER432]

1920 x 1080 on a 24" asus. Not so sure if I like the wide screen though.

I've got mixed feelings also: great for watching movies, though I'm not sure how I feel about the move to wide screens for everything else.

1600x1200 20" Dell 2007FP

1024x768 on the X60s

[rnak92a]

1920*1200 on a 22" Lenovo ThinkVision L220x
1440*900 on a 14.1" ThinkPad T400 (Samsung LED)
1280*800 on a 12.1" ThinkPad X200T (Samsung, not Hydis, S-PVA LED Tablet).

Cheers,
~rn

P.S.,
AFLAC! :lol:

[Manyak]

My PC has two 24" screens, and will be getting a third next month, each of which does 2304x1440.

So I guess, 6912x1440?

[Rajagra]

3840x1200 spanning over 2x 24".

And I'm another with that setup. I only just got around to hooking them up that way after having them on my desk for years. Before, they were on one PC each. Now one PC uses the DVI connections, the other uses the D-SUBs.

Now I'm kicking myself for getting Vista on the new PC, it can't span across the screens for gaming.

[FKSSR]

I like using dual monitors at work, but they have different things on them.  I can't imagine putting the same screen over them.  Doesn't the break in the middle get annoying?

[Manyak]

I like using dual monitors at work, but they have different things on them.  I can't imagine putting the same screen over them.  Doesn't the break in the middle get annoying?

That kind of spanning is only useful over an odd number of monitors useful (like 3 or 5), and only with certain applications. Lots of dialog boxes pop up in the center of the 'desktop', and on two monitors those boxes end up broken in half.

On 2 monitors you'd use the regular multi-desktop approach, where maximizing an application just maximizes it over that monitor, and its dialog boxes appear in the center of only that monitor.

[TheSoulhunter]

1920x1200 (24" Eizo LCD)
1024x768 (Samsung CRT)
1024x768 -> PAL (TV)

[eugenius]

I had many S-PVA / S-IPS 23-24" monitors, now I'm on a the backup - Belinea P-MVA 1280x1024 19" monitor, and searching for a 30" H-IPS.

[bhtooefr]

Looks like my next machine is going to be 2048x1536 with an IDTech IAQX10N 15" IPS panel.

(ThinkPad T60 or T60p with the EEPROM flashed to contain the correct EDID info. This panel (well, the IAQX10S, which is apparently the same thing, just with an IBM part number) was used in a medical imaging configuration of the R50p, and some Chinese guys figured out how to get the panel working in the R60/T60. Apparently works better in a T60/p than it did in a T41p/2p/3p, even.)

[pmyshkin]

Yeah I know, it's already on my todo list.  Can you recommend one that's configurable by GUI?  I don't have time for studying config file syntax ΰ la fvwm for example...

You can take a look at wmii or xmonad. Even though they don't have gui driven configuration, they both work pretty well out of the box.

And anyway, what do you mean by "don't have time?" If you browse geekhack, you have time to figure out simple config syntax.

[IBI]

3840x1200 spanning over 2x 24".

And I'm another with that setup. I only just got around to hooking them up that way after having them on my desk for years. Before, they were on one PC each. Now one PC uses the DVI connections, the other uses the D-SUBs.

How do you use 2x 24" screens? I'm considering adding a second 24" to my PC but I'm not sure I'd actually use it.

[o2dazone]

I know you're asking ktkr and Rajagra but I have a single 24" setup at home, and a dual 24" setup at work. The additional real-estate is great, but I only finding myself utilizing all 48" when doing motion graphics and editing in After Effects and Premiere, otherwise, about 70% of the screen stays blank lol. I guess it all depends on your habits though. I'm also used to a "Primary/Auxiliary" monitor layout, where the main monitor is in front of me, and the auxiliary is to the side. With dual 24s I have to put them evenly in the center (or else I end up finding 50% of the aux monitor is too far away lol)

[Manyak]

How do you use 2x 24" screens? I'm considering adding a second 24" to my PC but I'm not sure I'd actually use it.

Having a second monitor is worth every penny IMO, and if you're a big multitasker you'll slap yourself upside the head for not getting one earlier. But it doesn't really have to be 24", it's just the fact that you have a second screen to put stuff on the side on that's important. Just to give you ideas of what I do with mine:

- If I need to look up info for a report or programming project, I'll have the internet open on the side one with MS Word / visual studio open on the main one. Much easier than constantly alt-tabbing.

- When surfing the net, the second monitor is used for a media player, displaying my music library, watching a movie, and stuff like that

- When setting up stuff on my server, I just use remote desktop and maximize it on the second screen - without really interrupting what I'm doing on the primary one, and switching back and forth becomes as easy as moving the mouse over.

- You can also play video games on the main screen while vent/teamspeak is open on the second one - to see who's talking.



Like I said, it's really nice to have one. But there's no reason to get a big one, or even a good quality one - just as long as it's there. (unless it becomes beneficial to your work or something)

[Rajagra]

Yes, mainly for multiple apps or ones where you can shift menus etc to the 2nd screen like Photoshop or Gimp.
I wouldn't have bought two 24" screens just to do this. But as I have 2 PCs side by side, and the 2 screens can switch between DVI and VGA, it seemed silly not to take advantage of it.

Can anyone else remember putting Hercules and EGA display cards in one PC to get dual screens?

[wheel83]

i had 1 24" dell and i felt the real estate was too large.  also it didnt run things like ps3 and dvd movies in the proper ratio.  so instead i got an asus 22".  i think i will get another.  it is a great monitor for the money.

[IBI]

i had 1 24" dell and i felt the real estate was too large.

Yeah, unfortunately features that should be standard by now like 1:1 mapping and aspects scaling aren't.

@Ripster: Personally I find my 24" too small, it's a bit cramped for two windows side by side and an extra couple of hundred vertical pixels would be nice (say around 2200x1400). A 30" screen might be too big though, I've never tried one.  It is only an extra 7.5cm in height (3 inches) so you could always stick a strip of cardboard to the back of your 24" to raise it's height (or the bottom, if the stand doesn't go all the way down).

[ironcoder]

I have two 22 inchers and a 20 incher in use right now but that's on 3 separate boxes. I never get enough screen real estate and I finally decided dual-head is the way to go. I would rather have 2x20 than one 22 on the desk. I don't think there's ever a screen big enough. I usually like to have a manual open in dual page mode and that takes a whole screen. And then I have a piece of code open and a program listing open and that takes another whole screen. If not, then you get sick from switching back and forth and waste a lot of time. I remember in the old days we used to avoid this problem by having a dead tree manual on the desk and then  one screen was enough. Damn those online documentation sets. Now everybody needs at least 2 screens to get anything done.

 If I had two screens side by side (dual head) then I could live with less boxes. Of course I won't live with less boxes, but I will probably get more screens!

[bhtooefr]

2880x2400 + 2048x1536. :biggrin1:

2048x1536 on the 15.0" internal LCD, 2880x2400 on the external IBM T221 (22.2", although only 18.4" of the display area is being used.) Unfortunately, I can't run the full design 3840x2400 due to a hard limit of my graphics card. :sad:

[watduzhkstand4]

1920x1200 =[ I want to get a CRT and make it huge =D

[timw4mail]

1680x1050 + 1680x1050

So, that's 3360x1050.

Although, I'd really like to get a decent panel for a vertical display.

[InSanCen]

1440*900

Fujitsu Siemens 19"

I still wish to this day I never sold my pair of 22" Lac'ie Electron Blues... Best monitor's ever, even though they doubled up as a space heaters. Oh, and 4092 x 1536@80 Hz (Across both screens).

[Mr.6502]

1280x1024 (19" Sony LCD) + 1600x1200 (22" IBM CRT)

The LCD has great color and refresh rate, and is portable enough to take to a friends house.  

The CRT is very useful for design stuff or to weigh down my car's back end in the winter.

[kode]

I've got two 1680x1050 screens, so 3360x1050. I sorta want to get another GPU and add a monitor or two more to it. That'd be sweet.

[lal]

While I have a 24" LCD (1920x1200) I actually think about getting a *smaller* one.  Somehow I feel lost with this huge screen and I can work more concentrated at the tiny 12" in my laptop.  Quality of the 12" sucks though, so I end up with all apps overlapping in one corner of the big screen

[keyb_gr]

While I have a 24" LCD (1920x1200) I actually think about getting a *smaller* one.  Somehow I feel lost with this huge screen and I can work more concentrated at the tiny 12" in my laptop.  Quality of the 12" sucks though, so I end up with all apps overlapping in one corner of the big screen

Maybe you should just place the 24" further away?

That being said, I don't need anything bigger than a 1280x1024 19" either. Just more area for the mouse pointer to get lost in. OK, I'm a special case.

[microsoft windows]

My main computer is running in 800x600 on a 14" DEC monitor from 1993. It's still got knobs for adjusting the settings.

[lal]

Maybe you should just place the 24" further away?

It's already as far away as possible.  More distance would either make text too small to read or give ugly results if everything is set to bigger font sizes.  I prefer the crystal clear display quality as it is and live with that slight uncomfortable feeling at times

[kode]

well, I guess you could use just a bit of the monitor...

But really, personally I feel I have a hard time readjusting to smaller monitors for every time I move up a resolution. I'm now at a point where I can fit two terminals/emacsen side by side with both getting the space I feel they need on both monitors. Next time I go up a resolution I expect to be able to put two browser on the same screens without them interfering with each other. That'll be nice.

[erricrice]

I have a 22" Acer running at 1680x1050.  I want to get a 30" eventually though, but only once I get a good job so I can afford a $1200 monitor....

[Moparx]

I have a 22" Westinghouse LCM-22w3 which runs at 1680x1050.

[datamonger128]

On my home systems, I utilize a 15.6" 16:9 LCD on both my Mac mini and my HP a6600z.  Both of these computers use 1366x768.  On my HP dv6458se, everything is shown in the native 1280x800.

[bhtooefr]

well, I guess you could use just a bit of the monitor...

But really, personally I feel I have a hard time readjusting to smaller monitors for every time I move up a resolution. I'm now at a point where I can fit two terminals/emacsen side by side with both getting the space I feel they need on both monitors. Next time I go up a resolution I expect to be able to put two browser on the same screens without them interfering with each other. That'll be nice.

I hate that - I've noticed that it takes a while to readjust to ONLY having one monitor, at 2048x1536, when I undock. :laugh:

[JBert]

1280x1024 + 1920x1200 here.
Both are the native resolutions of my Samsung LCD screens.

[xyzzy]

1440x900 (15" MB Pro, left side)
1920x1200 (24" Dell 2407WFP, center)
1050x1680 (20" Dell 2007WFP, right side, vertical)

.... and I feel like I'd make a good use of a couple more LCDs. Hey bhtooefr, wanna borrow that T221? :lol:

[Xuan]

Home: 1680x1050 (20")
Work: 2x 1280x1024 (19")

[Hofy]

1680 x 1050 on a Dell 20" 2007WFP S-ISP panel

[ironcoder]

I was surprised that 20 and 22 inch LCDs have the same "native" resolution. On a 20 incher 1680x1050 is pretty nice, but I'd like to go higher (and can't with my o/b graphics) on my 22 inchers.

[ironcoder]

I'm now at a point where I can fit two terminals/emacsen side by side with both getting the space I feel they need on both monitors. Next time I go up a resolution I expect to be able to put two browser on the same screens without them interfering with each other. That'll be nice.

I like having one emacs on the screen split into 2 verticals because it's a more economical use of the real estate. Have you tried that? What I really like is having the source on the left and a compiled listing on the right. Now that's sweet.

[ironcoder]

I have a 22" Acer running at 1680x1050.  I want to get a 30" eventually though, but only once I get a good job so I can afford a $1200 monitor....

I think after you get to 20 or 22 inches you're better off getting another monitor than going any larger. I guess it depends on what you use your systems for.

[bhtooefr]

Not all 22" monitors are 1680x1050.

(And I'm not even referring to the occasional 1920x1200 one you find out there. I'm referring to 3840x2400. )

[kode]

I like having one emacs on the screen split into 2 verticals because it's a more economical use of the real estate. Have you tried that? What I really like is having the source on the left and a compiled listing on the right. Now that's sweet.

Yeah, that's what I usually do.

[ironcoder]

Not all 22" monitors are 1680x1050.

(And I'm not even referring to the occasional 1920x1200 one you find out there. I'm referring to 3840x2400. )

Woot woot woot for you! Is that a CRT or are you running a slew of FXs in GLI?

[D-EJ915]

IBM T220/221 is the 3840x2400 22.1" lcd

I got a laptop the other day which is 1024x768 and is 6.4" diagonal.  1024²+768²=1280² so 1280 / 6.4 = 200 pixels per inch so it has slightly less density as the IBM one which is insane, stuff is small enough as is on this thing XD I can't really imagine it being any smaller even if just slightly so lol.

http://project777.darktech.org:777/gallery2/v/pcg-u3/IMG_4984.JPG.html

[ironcoder]

Yeah I guess the two sides are the size of the display and how much you can get on it AND still see what you are looking at.

I don't have any use for tiny tiny characters on small screens but a big screen where I could fit enough stuff on it and still see it all clearly, that would be nice.

Edit: wow, that's a really sweet little machine you got yourself there, hardware king! I notice you wind up with a lot of cool stuff. I loved that other shot of your server rack. I would like to get something like an X300 with enough RAM and an SSD and enough horsepower to do some serious work but they're too damn expensive for it to be worth me importing one now. I don't want anything too small because you can't type well enough on it and I'm too damn old to be able to see tiny characters.

So many toys, so little time.

[bhtooefr]

IBM T220/221 is the 3840x2400 22.1" lcd

And mine's a DG5, the best version.

I got a laptop the other day which is 1024x768 and is 6.4" diagonal.  1024²+768²=1280² so 1280 / 6.4 = 200 pixels per inch so it has slightly less density as the IBM one which is insane, stuff is small enough as is on this thing XD I can't really imagine it being any smaller even if just slightly so lol.

http://project777.darktech.org:777/gallery2/v/pcg-u3/IMG_4984.JPG.html

Nice, although the Crusoe must not be fun. I think the modern day equivalent would be the Fujitsu U820, with a 1.6 GHz Atom, and a 1280x800 5.6" display.