| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 37125 | 2003-08-29 04:37:00 | OT: poll: what res do you run your screen at? | forrest44 (754) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 171475 | 2003-08-29 07:33:00 | > Fire-and-Ice - there's no need to tear Stu apart. If > he made a mistake, he made a mistake, and you can > point it out to him, instead of saying "it is > not!!!!!" > > Just a suggestion to keep everyone calm on the forum. Ur above post was a waste somebody, Fire & Ice wasnt being angry or impolite he was just tellin him it wasnt correct, dont expect smily faces wen people are proved wrong :D nyways bak to the post i have 1024 x 768 Phillips 107s monitor. |
vk_dre (195) | ||
| 171476 | 2003-08-29 08:07:00 | 1280*960*32@85Hz on an AOC 7Klr. That is the highest normal resolution (3/4) that it will run at 85Hz. Any higher and the refresh drops. Plus 2048*1536 is just a tad too small on a 17". |
-=JM=- (16) | ||
| 171477 | 2003-08-29 08:21:00 | > Suggestion for your 16/32bit problem - you need a new > video card, or new drivers for your current one. It > does not appear to be powerful enough to handle 32bit > at high resolutions, so I assume it's one of those > older 4mb or so cards. Ummm no :) I was wrong - it'll run at higher res at 32bit but the refresh rate drops to an annoying level (eg under 85Hz) - I had it running at 1600xsomething and that's when it wouldn't run at 32bit. And it's definitely not an old 4mb card ;) it wouldn't run any of the apps I need to run at work LOL. Thanks for your concern and suggestions though. I guess I'll get a new top-of-the-range video card when they upgrade my work PC (which should be soon I hope) :D Mike. |
Mike (15) | ||
| 171478 | 2003-08-29 09:00:00 | Thanks vk_dre, you are correct. I was not being angry or impolite and I admit that I forgot a smiley emoticon to indicate that. <action replay> Stu, it is not!!! :O :D That is his screen resolution. His monitor size would be 15" or 17" or 19" etc. :-) </action replay> Is that better? :-) Oh, and I have 1024 x 788 on a 17" monitor also. |
Fire-and-Ice (3910) | ||
| 171479 | 2003-08-29 09:18:00 | I used to run 1184x768 on my 17" monitor but the refresh rate could only go to about 72Hz. So I changed it to 1024x768 in 32bit, and at 85Hz - much nicer on the eyes ;) I tested it out at much higher resolutions and really you need to increase the DPI up from 96 to see anything properly :) |
PoWa (203) | ||
| 171480 | 2003-08-29 09:24:00 | 800x600 (using a Philips 105E) :( When i have my other monitor hooked up it's 1600x600 :D |
wintertide (1306) | ||
| 171481 | 2003-08-29 10:24:00 | When someone says "It is not" with 3 exclamation marks, to me it seems like there is a slight tone of anger involved. I understand that you are pointing out that he was wrong, but the tone in which someone types something can be interpreted differently. You could interpret this post as an angry tone, or as simply a comment. I simply interpreted your post to Stu as a (slight) bit of anger involved. |
somebody (208) | ||
| 171482 | 2003-08-29 10:29:00 | 1024 by 768 pixels on 17" x 2 monitors Oxie |
Oxie (1318) | ||
| 171483 | 2003-08-29 11:05:00 | Desktop, 19" flat screen crt @ 1280x1024. Laptop, 15" TFT @ 1400x1050. |
b1naryb0y (3) | ||
| 171484 | 2003-08-30 01:42:00 | 17" LCD Screen at 1280 x 1024 But the best bit is my sexy male pin-up screensaver. ;) |
Pollly (1416) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||