Author Topic: What's your main computer's screen resolution? (Read 74592 times)

gr1m · « **Reply #200 on:** Wed, 09 June 2010, 21:18:47 »

1680x1050 with a 1080p in the mail. I would have preferred to keep 16:10 and have gotten a 1920x1200 monitor but they're just too hard to find for a reasonable price.

Phaedrus2129 · « **Reply #201 on:** Wed, 09 June 2010, 21:46:40 »

1680x1050 primary, 1440x900 secondary.

And yeah, 16:10 just keeps getting harder and harder to find, 1680x1050 was all over the place for a little while, now everything in that price range is either 1600x900 or 1920x1080.

glo · « **Reply #202 on:** Thu, 10 June 2010, 02:54:54 »

1280x720 on a 24" widescreen.
I also set Firefox zoom to a default 120%.

Can't stand to lean forward in order to see small text.

EDIT: The above is my current resolution. The monitor is actually capable of up to 1920x1080

Findecanor · « **Reply #203 on:** Thu, 10 June 2010, 07:36:05 »

Right now, a 1680×1050 on a 20" 16:10 LCD monitor, at work. 1152×864 on a 17" 4:3 vintage Apple CRT connected to my PC at home. I am looking to buy a 1920×1080 22" as my next monitor at home.

Buckling_Summer · « **Reply #204 on:** Thu, 10 June 2010, 07:45:44 »

My system is presenting itself with a resolution of
1920 x 1200 on Samsung SyncMaster 2493HM
with the help of ATI RADEON HD 4770.

Harry_Y · « **Reply #205 on:** Sun, 13 June 2010, 07:28:41 »

22" - 1680x1050

ironman31 · « **Reply #206 on:** Mon, 21 June 2010, 09:21:16 »

1680 x 1050 IPS Dell 2209WA

macintoshjohn · « **Reply #207 on:** Mon, 21 June 2010, 23:30:36 »

1280 x 1024

Computer-Lab in Basement · « **Reply #208 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 13:09:41 »

1024 x 768. Dell Latitude D600. Despite the somewhat poor specs, it runs faster than most of my newer desktops.

kishy · « **Reply #209 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 17:32:04 »

Don't underestimate a Pentium M, CLiB. That's a good processor and one of very few Intel chips that feels faster than their claimed speed (especially considering the time it was introduced).

I would lose my mind using a 4:3 laptop though...I've been working on getting my Latitude CSx functional lately and it makes me crazy. Pretty nice keyboard though...

ch_123 · « **Reply #210 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 17:38:49 »

Quote from: kishy;195825

Don't underestimate a Pentium M, CLiB. That's a good processor and one of very few Intel chips that feels faster than their claimed speed (especially considering the time it was introduced).

The Pentium M was the basis for the Core line of chips, in fact, the Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) was just a dual core version of one of the later Pentium Ms.

The Pentium M was in turn largely based on the Pentium 3, which it turn was the same thing as the Pentium 2. Goes to show you how little Intel has progressed since then...

microsoft windows · « **Reply #211 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 17:53:24 »

15" DEC: 800x600
16" Trinitron: 1024x768
19" Samsung: 1024x768

kishy · « **Reply #212 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 18:07:30 »

Quote from: ch_123;195827

The Pentium M was the basis for the Core line of chips, in fact, the Core Duo (not Core 2 Duo) was just a dual core version of one of the later Pentium Ms.

The Pentium M was in turn largely based on the Pentium 3, which it turn was the same thing as the Pentium 2. Goes to show you how little Intel has progressed since then...

When they attempted to do something different it totally failed (NetBurst was it?)

All I know is when I bought my P-M equipped laptop a couple years ago I figured that in 2 years I'd be buying something new...but it's been remarkably competent at everything I've tried to do with it, and it's quite possible this computer will stick around for years to come (it runs Win7 and performs quite well, minus Aero however, so if I feel the need to move away from XP I'll be able to without complications)

Quote from: microsoft windows;195831

15" DEC: 800x600
16" Trinitron: 1024x768
19" Samsung: 1024x768

19" at 1024x768? The taskbar's gotta be half an inch thick on that...ick.

microsoft windows · « **Reply #213 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 18:14:40 »

Quote from: kishy;195838

19" at 1024x768? The taskbar's gotta be half an inch thick on that...ick.

Ain't that the size the task bar's supposed to be?

kishy · « **Reply #214 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 18:19:19 »

Ideally under 1cm...

gr1m · « **Reply #215 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 19:35:17 »

Pentium M is the basis of the Core 2 Duo arch.

ch_123 · « **Reply #216 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 19:46:51 »

Quote from: kishy;195838

When they attempted to do something different it totally failed (NetBurst was it?)

Well, Pentium 4/Netburst looked like a very clever idea when people didn't know that heat dissipation and electrical waste would become the serious issue that it would inevitably become. Hindsight is a great thing, but always comes too late to be useful...

bhtooefr · « **Reply #217 on:** Wed, 23 June 2010, 21:06:58 »

IIRC, Core architecture (that is, the architecture sold as the Core 2 line) is a widened Pentium M design, essentially. Quad-issue instead of triple-issue like all P6 (Pentium Pro through Core Solo/Duo) chips, and it does have some improvements in the x86 instruction decoder, it seems.

I believe Nehalem architecture (Core i) is (oversimplified) Core with HyperThreading and higher clock speeds, essentially.

dfj · « **Reply #218 on:** Thu, 24 June 2010, 16:59:47 »

Mumble - 1920x1200.
Just missed the display-port introduction with this screen. At least it's a faster NEC IPS.
bah. dfj

bhtooefr · « **Reply #219 on:** Thu, 24 June 2010, 17:21:57 »

That's not the max for DVI.

At 60 Hz, it's the max for reduced timings on single-link DVI.

ch_123 · « **Reply #220 on:** Thu, 24 June 2010, 17:42:17 »

Dual Link DVI does 2560x1600. Have fun finding a single monitor that needs more than that.

[size=-2]Other than those IBM T220/221s[/size]

bhtooefr · « **Reply #221 on:** Fri, 25 June 2010, 02:37:41 »

There are actually other monitors that need more than that.

And, again, that's at 60 Hz.

You can run a T221 off of single-link DVI on an Nvidia card, for that matter, it'll just be at 13 Hz. (Or 15 Hz if you use reduced timings. The ATI cards aren't capable of doing more than 2880 pixels wide under any circumstances on single-link DVI, so you need to use dual-link or two single-links to get 3840.)

n3rrd · « **Reply #222 on:** Sat, 26 June 2010, 10:07:53 »

My main computer's monitor is a Dell 3007WFP with a resolution of 2560x1600.

Pylon · « **Reply #223 on:** Mon, 28 June 2010, 12:35:00 »

1024x768 on an old 14" Panasonic LCD.
1024x768 @ 85Hz on a 17"(15.9" effective) NEC FE700+ CRT, which I sometimes use.

chimera15 · « **Reply #224 on:** Mon, 28 June 2010, 13:02:44 »

There's no way I'd be the biggest, so I'll be the smallest, 800x480 on an imo usb 7" sub monitor. roflol

nraymond · « **Reply #225 on:** Wed, 30 June 2010, 22:43:48 »

23" 2048x1152 on my PC (TN panel, just for gaming) and 22" 1680x1050 on my Mac (IPS panel, used for everything else).

ihasmario · « **Reply #226 on:** Fri, 29 March 2013, 22:05:15 »

3840*2400.

Times three.

SmallFry · « **Reply #227 on:** Fri, 29 March 2013, 22:47:12 »

How do you guys even find thes threads anymore... the previous reply is in 2010...

inteli722 · « **Reply #228 on:** Fri, 29 March 2013, 23:08:39 »

Quote from: SmallFry on Fri, 29 March 2013, 22:47:12

How do you guys even find thes threads anymore... the previous reply is in 2010...

IKR!

BTW 1920x1200 on a Dell U2412M

EDIT: Forgot Secondary Screen: 1440x900

Jocelyn · « **Reply #229 on:** Fri, 29 March 2013, 23:09:18 »

Quote from: SmallFry on Fri, 29 March 2013, 22:47:12

How do you guys even find thes threads anymore... the previous reply is in 2010...

lol I totally agree, but they probably want to hit 60 posts.

1920x1200 here

SmallFry · « **Reply #230 on:** Fri, 29 March 2013, 23:14:32 »

Quote from: Jocelyn on Fri, 29 March 2013, 23:09:18

lol I totally agree, but they probably want to hit 60 posts.

I don't have that problem.

compgeke · « **Reply #231 on:** Sat, 30 March 2013, 03:51:31 »

Hey, it's about quality, not quantity, which is why our keyboards will more than likely outlast any of the garbage rubberdomes that are mass shipped with systems today.

Anyways,
Laptop is 1440x900 @ 14.1"
Desktop Monitor 1 is 1440x900 @ 19"
Desktop Monitor 2 is 1280x1024 @ 17"
Random monitor that switches between what I'm working on is 1280x1024 @ 17".

Sifo · « **Reply #232 on:** Sat, 30 March 2013, 03:57:29 »

1920 x 1080 on my first screen
1280 x 1024 on my second screen...

Too lazy to upgrade.

YoungMichael88 · « **Reply #233 on:** Sat, 30 March 2013, 04:07:01 »

2560x1440 27" iMac

Neal · « **Reply #234 on:** Sat, 30 March 2013, 19:35:55 »

2560x1440

calavera · « **Reply #235 on:** Sat, 30 March 2013, 20:39:32 »

1920x1200 x 2

ComradeSniper · « **Reply #236 on:** Mon, 01 April 2013, 12:36:26 »

1920x1080 for my primary, 1280x1024 for my secondary. I've had the 1080 monitor for 4 or 5 years now, I should probably get a new one sometime soon.

daerid · « **Reply #237 on:** Mon, 01 April 2013, 12:51:01 »

3 x U3011 @ 2560x1600 (total of 7680 x 1600)

tipo33 · « **Reply #238 on:** Mon, 01 April 2013, 14:35:57 »

2560x1440 on my main desktop.
UXGA IPS glory on my T60 thinkpad

ComradeSniper · « **Reply #239 on:** Mon, 01 April 2013, 16:22:53 »

Quote from: daerid on Mon, 01 April 2013, 12:51:01

3 x U3011 @ 2560x1600 (total of 7680 x 1600)

Wow, what GPU(s) do you have powering that?

Rare · « **Reply #240 on:** Mon, 01 April 2013, 23:04:34 »

Currently just have a 25 inch HP monitor sitting at 1920x1080. Gonna upgrade to an IPS 2560X1440 monitor soon. Just need to get a keyboard first.

SpAmRaY · « **Reply #241 on:** Tue, 02 April 2013, 11:38:41 »

1920x1200 x3

keeganzero · « **Reply #242 on:** Tue, 02 April 2013, 20:21:12 »

3840X1080 (Two ASUS VS239H-P 23")

mushupork · « **Reply #243 on:** Tue, 02 April 2013, 20:47:03 »

thread zombie needs B R A I N S !!

1920 x 1200 x 2 monitors

davkol · « **Reply #244 on:** Wed, 03 April 2013, 14:58:41 »

It's interesting to read how many people still ran 1024×768 in 2010, but wait... I used mostly vintage laptops w/ 12" XGA LCDs until 2010. Today, my laptop (thinkpad X200T) has 12" 1280×800 IPS screen, and I'm about to upgrade from 1920×1080 (cheap Samsung) + 1280×1024 (ancient 17" Eizo TN screen) to two FullHD screens in pivot, and maybe something 4:3 for gaming.

daerid · « **Reply #245 on:** Wed, 03 April 2013, 21:56:43 »

Quote from: ComradeSniper on Mon, 01 April 2013, 16:22:53

Quote from: daerid on Mon, 01 April 2013, 12:51:01
3 x U3011 @ 2560x1600 (total of 7680 x 1600)

Wow, what GPU(s) do you have powering that?

It's my work machine, so I'm not really pushing any games through them. Right now I have two of them on a 660ti 3GB SC, and the 3rd is on a 560ti.

sth · « **Reply #246 on:** Wed, 03 April 2013, 22:02:36 »

well i guess we're rollin with this necro posting...
personal machine is 13" @ 1440x900, sometimes hooked up to a 24" @ 1920x1200 for movies and whatnot

work machine is 2x 20" @ 1600x900.

kaotikb · « **Reply #247 on:** Wed, 03 April 2013, 23:36:01 »

1920x1200 on two Dell 24" screens.

csloan1218 · « **Reply #248 on:** Tue, 09 April 2013, 11:45:19 »

1920x1080 on my 32" lg tv

infiniti · « **Reply #249 on:** Tue, 09 April 2013, 20:05:22 »

1920x1080 on a 23" Viewsonic LCD monitor at home.

1280x800 on the MacBook Pro I use for work.

News:

Author Topic: What's your main computer's screen resolution? (Read 74592 times)