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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
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 |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
On LCDs? Absolutely.
On CRTs? Absolutely not. |
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Isn't it the other way around? On CRT you would tend to set to maximum resolution and LCD you would not? No?
|
quote |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Sneaky Punk
|
My 19" Acer LCD has a native resolution of 1280x1024, but I can run it at 1600x1280 (it looks bad though).
|
quote |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
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 |
Selfish Heathen
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Zone of Pain
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Quote:
When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray. |
|
quote |
‽
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
monkey with a tiny cymbal
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
|
Quote:
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 |
Sneaky Punk
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Yarp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Road Warrior
|
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 |
Member
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Arizona
|
Currently at 1680x1050 on my 20" iMac. Runs/Looks great. I love my additional real estate!
|
quote |
Subdued and Medicated
|
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 |
monkey with a tiny cymbal
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Lost
|
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 |
Right Honourable Member
|
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 |
Hoonigan
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Canada
|
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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
Looks like I am in the definite minority on LCD.
|
quote |
Subdued and Medicated
|
Quote:
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. |
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
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 |
Member
|
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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Promise Land of Trustafarians
|
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 |
owner for sale by house
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Charlotte, NC
|
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 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Leiden, the Netherlands
|
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. |
quote |
Less than Stellar Member
|
As others, always on my LCD and most of the time on my CRT eMac. I like screen real estate.
|
quote |
is not a kind of basket
Join Date: May 2004
|
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 |
reticulating your mom
|
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 |
‽
|
Quote:
|
|
quote |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Ottawa, ON
|
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:
When there's an eel in the lake that's as long as a snake that's a moray. |
|
quote |
Posting Rules | Navigation |
|
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 |