Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 5:45 am
by Chris Corbyn
1024x768 - Even on screens where I can get much higher res. I like it that way because when I'm testing layouts I tend to sway towards 1024x768 being the most ideal res to test at... of course I test in other resolutions too but I work in 1024x768.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 12:08 pm
by pilau
mickd wrote:i dual 2 19" monitors, 1 lcd and 1 crt. both using 1280x1024, havent really tried any others.
Ouch! An LCD along with a CRT isn't it painful?
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 6:11 pm
by Skara
blacksnday wrote:Could I get anyone to check out
http://villificnews.info and see what is displays as if running
something other then what I just mentioned?
villificnews.info could not be found. Please check the name and try again.
Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 7:42 pm
by Nathaniel
1024 x 768 pixels - the best I can get out of my Laptop. I was annoyed when I first found that out, because my dad's laptop (way more expensive model) supports much higher resolutions, but in hindsight, it's probably best that I do all of my web development in this resolution, instead of a higher, less popular one.

Posted: Sun Oct 09, 2005 9:38 pm
by Ambush Commander
1280 x 1024
The thing is, I almost never keep my windows maximized (like my browser window is at 950 x something) because websites just don't look that good when they're stretched that far.
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 7:34 am
by malcolmboston
17" CRT @ 1024*768
i design all my 'commercial' sites using 800*600 but all my own 'experiemental' work such as media center on my localhost i use 1024*768 as i need as much screen estate as possible, also it is not meant for anyone else but my home network so i can control what browser / resolution / plugins etc we are using
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 8:25 am
by phpdevuk
1280 x 1024 32BP on flat screen
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 11:14 am
by John Cartwright
If it were up to me, I would set minimum screen resolution to 1600x1200

gotto love the real estate
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 12:03 pm
by jayshields
i use 1024x768, have done for a couple of years. got a 17" CRT, still can't see the point in a TFT, the price:quality ratio is well in favour of CRT still IMO.
ps. lmao @ feyd 1600x1200. 1280x1024 is max i can go to on my old FX5900XT and it hurts my eyes lol. i reckon feyd has square eyes

does ppi determine entirely what your res can go to or does it depend on the graphics card a bit aswell? if it's entirely ppi then aslong as your response time on your screen is half decent the monitor must have cost you a packet feyd...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 1:50 pm
by feyd
ppi sets up the native resolution, but your graphics card also dictates how far you can go and what refresh rates. Most 19" LCD's that I've seen can do 1600 natively, they aren't all that pricey usually...
Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 2:19 pm
by Chris Corbyn
feyd wrote:ppi sets up the native resolution, but your graphics card also dictates how far you can go and what refresh rates. Most 19" LCD's that I've seen can do 1600 natively, they aren't all that pricey usually...
Not pricey at all. Considering 4 years ago I paid almost £100 GBP for a 17" CRT they are pretty cheap. We got dual 19" LCDs at work in the last few weeks and they were just over £200 GBP each. Heh... I still run them at 1024x768 though

Posted: Mon Oct 10, 2005 5:12 pm
by Hardcore4Life
at home and on my laptop my sceen res is both 1024 x 768
at work it is 1600x1200 - most room for eclipse and photoshop stuff
