User Name
Password
AppleNova Forums » General Discussion »

Do you set your computer for maximum monitor resolution?


Register Members List Calendar Search FAQ Posting Guidelines
View Poll Results: Do you set your computer for maximum monitor resolution?
Yes 48 90.57%
No 5 9.43%
Voters: 53. You may not vote on this poll

Do you set your computer for maximum monitor resolution?
Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next Thread Tools
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2006-04-14, 14:07

Do you set your computer to the maximum resolution or does it make things just too darn small for you on the screen? This old thread: http://forums.applenova.com/showthread.php?t=11412
made me wonder what percentage of people compromise on sharpness, in order to get things just a bit bigger on screen. I do. My 18” iMac G5 can go up to 1440x900, but I always use the next stop below, 1152x720, just so that I can see things better.

I was just wondering who else does this.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2006-04-14, 14:14

On LCDs? Absolutely.

On CRTs? Absolutely not.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2006-04-14, 14:16

I always run my LCD at its native resolution, not its max. I don't tend to run CRTs at anything higher than 1024x768, maybe 1280x1024.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2006-04-14, 14:17

Isn't it the other way around? On CRT you would tend to set to maximum resolution and LCD you would not? No?
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2006-04-14, 14:17

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM
I always run my LCD at its native resolution, not its max,
Wait -- LCDs support resolutions higher than their native resolutions?
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2006-04-14, 14:19

My 19" Acer LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024, but I can run it at 1600x1280 (it looks bad though).
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2006-04-14, 14:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chinney
Isn't it the other way around? On CRT you would tend to set to maximum resolution and LCD you would not? No?
No.

With LCDs, at least with the ones I've used, the maximum resolution is the native resolution and appears the clearest.

With CRTs, the higher resolutions usually get a little blurrier.

The quality of this board depends on the quality of the posts. The only way to guarantee thoughtful, informative discussion is to write thoughtful, informative posts. AppleNova is not a real-time chat forum. You have time to compose messages and edit them before and after posting.
  quote
Brad
Selfish Heathen
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
 
2006-04-14, 14:19

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM
My 19" Acer LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024, but I can run it at 1600x1280 (it looks bad though).
Huh! I've never seen that before. Interesting!
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2006-04-14, 14:20

Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
No.

With LCDs, at least with the ones I've used, the maximum resolution is the native resolution and appears the clearest.

With CRTs, the higher resolutions usually get a little blurrier.
Except, with the high resolutions on LCDs you get the small 'size' issue, referred to in the thread I linked in my first post. But maybe most other people don't find this to be a big problem.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-04-14, 14:25

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM
My 19" Acer LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024, but I can run it at 1600x1280 (it looks bad though).
Hmm, interpolation, eh.
  quote
Majost
monkey with a tiny cymbal
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
 
2006-04-14, 14:27

Quote:
Originally Posted by PB PM
My 19" Acer LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024, but I can run it at 1600x1280 (it looks bad though).
Wow... they must be pixel-dropping. No wonder it looks so awful.

That's pretty stupid... although I guess most any company will do anything they can to get a leg up in this spec-whore economy.

Edit: Yeah, I suppose they're not simply dropping pixels... there'd be some calculations to redistribute the points... but I guess I think of interpolation is the creation of *new* information. This is the *loss* of information. But, yeah, they'd be interpolating those redistributions. Ugh.

Last edited by Majost : 2006-04-14 at 14:39.
  quote
PB PM
Sneaky Punk
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Send a message via Skype™ to PB PM 
2006-04-14, 14:38

Quote:
Originally Posted by chucker
Hmm, interpolation, eh.
Yes, somewhat. I got the "low end" model, with VGA only , rather than DVI and VGA connector.
  quote
Wrao
Yarp
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
 
2006-04-14, 14:40

My friend always brags that his 15" laptop has a much higher resolution display than my 15" laptop, but truly, whenever he shows me it, the text and images are all small and ugly. I have a hard time imagining that it's truly the native display of the LCD.

Anyway, I set my powerbook to max resolution, same with my iBook.
  quote
RichieB
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arizona
 
2006-04-14, 14:42

Currently at 1680x1050 on my 20" iMac. Runs/Looks great. I love my additional real estate!
  quote
Ebby
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2006-04-14, 14:45

2048x1536 @ 80hz on my CRT
That's Film 2K resolution for those who know.

Last edited by Ebby : 2006-04-14 at 15:26.
  quote
Majost
monkey with a tiny cymbal
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
 
2006-04-14, 14:47

Hmm... as far as the poll goes, it'd probably be more interesting to know if people use an LCD set to a non-native resolution. Most everyone using a CRT won't be using the maximum resolution. If they are, they have an amazing CRT and amazing eyes.

Or, it'd be even more interesting to see what pixel density people use. But that'd be difficult to answer.
  quote
turbulentfurball
Right Honourable Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Québec
Send a message via ICQ to turbulentfurball Send a message via AIM to turbulentfurball Send a message via MSN to turbulentfurball  
2006-04-14, 15:03

If I have my KVM switch in use, I use 1280 * 768 for my LCD, if not, I use the native resolution of 1200*800. The KVM can't handle 1200*800 for some reason.
  quote
murbot
Hoonigan
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
 
2006-04-14, 15:10

I can't imaging using an LCD at less than native resolution.

I can't imaging running my CRT at maximum resolution. On all the CRTs I've used, the max has a really low refresh rate, and look like absolute shit.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2006-04-14, 15:17

Looks like I am in the definite minority on LCD.
  quote
Ebby
Subdued and Medicated
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Over Yander
Send a message via AIM to Ebby  
2006-04-14, 15:30

Quote:
Originally Posted by murbot
On all the CRTs I've used, the max has a really low refresh rate, and look like absolute shit.
I added refresh rate to my post.

Basically I have a tiny flicker in the bottom right but it is barely noticeable. Other than that the image is very crisp, especially when working with photos and when using desktop pics with the same screen resolution.

^^ One more quality post from the desk of Ebby. ^^
SSBA | SmockBogger | SporkNET
  quote
BlueRabbit
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
 
2006-04-14, 15:41

On my 12" PB, of course I use the max resolution - anything worse than 1024x768 would drive me insane. However, my 17" CRT is getting kinda old, so its highest resolution is very flickery, and I set it a notch lower to compensate.
  quote
Mr Beardsley
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Colorado Springs
Send a message via AIM to Mr Beardsley  
2006-04-14, 16:39

On windows you can somtimes set the max resolution to be larger than the native resolution of the display. However, it doesn't show the whole image on the display it has to scroll. If you mouse to the right side of the screen it will auto scroll to the right and chop off the left. So while a display may say it support a higher res than its native, it's kind of a chincy way of doing it.

"Slow vehicle speeds with frequent stops would signal traffic congestion, for instance."

uh... it could also signal that my Mom is at the wheel...
  quote
Ryan
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
 
2006-04-14, 16:59

I run all my LCDs at their max resolution, which is 1280x1024 for my 17" LCD and 1024x768 for my PowerBook. I couldn't imagine using anything less.
  quote
ghoti
owner for sale by house
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
 
2006-04-14, 17:04

Setting an LCD to a higher resolution than native is even worse than using a lower than native resolution. You start losing pixels, can't read text clearly anymore (not just because of size, but also because parts of letters are actually missing). The only reason LCDs accept higher resolutions is so they look better in catalogs. I once read a spec for a scanner with a native resolution of 300dpi, and maximum resolution of 999,999dpi (interpolated) ...
  quote
julesstoop
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
 
2006-04-14, 17:18

Actually, with exposé you can get a reaonable estimation of what an LCD running on a higher than native rez looks like.

As to the question: LCD on native rez, allways. CRT: around 100 dpi.

A black hole is where god divided by zero.
http://settuno.com/
  quote
torifile
Less than Stellar Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Durham, NC
Send a message via AIM to torifile  
2006-04-14, 17:53

As others, always on my LCD and most of the time on my CRT eMac. I like screen real estate.
  quote
Wickers
is not a kind of basket
 
Join Date: May 2004
 
2006-04-14, 18:16

I run my LCD at its native res (1280x1024)...

My father runs his iMac G3 (333 rev.d) at 800x600 despite the max res of 1024x768. The higher res gives much needed desktop room but makes the monitor flicker slightly.

no sig, how's that for being a rebel!
  quote
atomicbartbeans
reticulating your mom
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Send a message via AIM to atomicbartbeans  
2006-04-14, 20:57

I can't run my 15" CRT at home on its max. resolution (1280x1024) because 60 hz drives me insane... LCDs on the other hand, I always run at native resolution.

You ask me for a hamburger.
  quote
chucker
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: near Bremen, Germany
Send a message via ICQ to chucker Send a message via AIM to chucker Send a message via MSN to chucker Send a message via Yahoo to chucker Send a message via Skype™ to chucker 
2006-04-14, 20:59

Quote:
Originally Posted by atomicbartbeans
I can't run my 15" CRT at home on its max. resolution (1280x1024) because 60 hz drives me insane...
That wouldn't be the right aspect ratio anyway; 1280x1024 is 5:4 whereas your screen is probably 4:3.
  quote
Chinney
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
 
2006-04-14, 21:17

Quote (just about everyone): 'I run my LCD at maximum resolution. You would have to be completely inane to do otherwise'.

But, from the "Resolution Independence" thread that I linked in my first post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brad
Resolution independence means that objects on your screen can scale up and down properly. This becomes Very Important™ as pixel densities on displays increase.

Computer graphics on systems with an implementation of resolution independence will no longer (generally) be measured in pixels because pixels vary in size from display to display, even today. Instead, we can use more natural and tangible terms like centimeters and inches to describe distances on the screen, just as we do with anything that goes to a printer.

Today, the arrow cursor is 16 pixels tall. What does that mean in terms of "real" size? Nothing! On one display, that 16-pixel arrow may be 2 cm tall; on another display it'll be 0.5 cm tall.

See where this is a problem?

When we have fanciful 200 ppi (or higher!) displays, GUIs that you look at today are going to be fairly worthless because the details will be too small to discern. That 16-pixel arrow will look like nothing but a tiny smudge on the screen. Resolution independence allows the GUI to scale up.
Please clarify. Does everyone just love 'real estate'? Does nobody else have the same problem that I have running an LCD at maximum resolution? Big real estate = 'tiny town' on the screen. I guess I am just one of those waiting for true resolution independence.

When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray.
  quote
Posting Rules Navigation
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Page 1 of 2 [1] 2  Next

Post Reply

Forum Jump
Thread Tools
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
FAQ: Check this thread *first* if you have problems or questions! Brad Genius Bar 26 2007-03-19 15:49
iPod to iTunes omem Genius Bar 5 2005-07-16 13:32
What is it with Apples Jules26 Apple Products 79 2005-01-18 04:33


« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 16:30.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2024, AppleNova