| |
|
Welcome to KnowledgeSutra - Dear Guest | |
What Desktop Resolution Do You Run On?
Started by alexia, May 27 2005 10:10 PM
28 replies to this topic
#10
Posted 29 May 2005 - 12:55 PM
Well, how can I make 24-bit to appear? I only have 16-bit and 32-bit. I think 32-bit makes my Pentium 3 700 Mhz 320 MB Ram pc, slower. But 16-bit, my computer is fast. My video memory is 64 MB. Is there a tweak for Windows XP to run faster in 32-bit color mode?
#11
Posted 29 May 2005 - 02:35 PM
At home, I'm using 1152x864x32 @ 75Hz, on Philips 107E 17" CRT
And, at work, for both Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, I use 1280x1024x32 @ 80Hz, on Xello SP1702 17" LCD...
Setting low refresh rate on high resolutions, WILL cause eye damage, can cause headaches, and stuff... Believe me, I tried
that's why I'm a proud owner of a pair of these

The lowest setting you should use on high resolutios (higher than 1024x768) is 72 Hz... 60Hz on 15" at resolution of 1400x1050.... I don't think I could read anything from scan lines
And, at work, for both Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, I use 1280x1024x32 @ 80Hz, on Xello SP1702 17" LCD...
Setting low refresh rate on high resolutions, WILL cause eye damage, can cause headaches, and stuff... Believe me, I tried
The lowest setting you should use on high resolutios (higher than 1024x768) is 72 Hz... 60Hz on 15" at resolution of 1400x1050.... I don't think I could read anything from scan lines
#12
Posted 30 May 2005 - 08:01 AM
Galahad, on May 29 2005, 10:35 PM, said:
At home, I'm using 1152x864x32 @ 75Hz, on Philips 107E 17" CRT
And, at work, for both Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, I use 1280x1024x32 @ 80Hz, on Xello SP1702 17" LCD...
Setting low refresh rate on high resolutions, WILL cause eye damage, can cause headaches, and stuff... Believe me, I tried
that's why I'm a proud owner of a pair of these

The lowest setting you should use on high resolutios (higher than 1024x768) is 72 Hz... 60Hz on 15" at resolution of 1400x1050.... I don't think I could read anything from scan lines
And, at work, for both Windows XP and Ubuntu Linux, I use 1280x1024x32 @ 80Hz, on Xello SP1702 17" LCD...
Setting low refresh rate on high resolutions, WILL cause eye damage, can cause headaches, and stuff... Believe me, I tried
The lowest setting you should use on high resolutios (higher than 1024x768) is 72 Hz... 60Hz on 15" at resolution of 1400x1050.... I don't think I could read anything from scan lines
#16
Posted 03 November 2005 - 04:35 AM
Notebook LCD
1024x728
Currently at 32-bit depth for colour, makes the Windows gray toolbars and stuff look slightly brownish. After reading about how 32-bit slows down many old computers (my computer's a Pentium II), I might consider changing to 16- or 24-bit.
1024x728
Currently at 32-bit depth for colour, makes the Windows gray toolbars and stuff look slightly brownish. After reading about how 32-bit slows down many old computers (my computer's a Pentium II), I might consider changing to 16- or 24-bit.
#17
Posted 23 January 2006 - 10:13 AM
rvovk, on May 28 2005, 03:03 PM, said:
Way! ViewSonic VG510S 15" is native 1280 x 1024.
So I think you need to give up your preconceptions.
Soon you'll be telling us that their are not 64 bit graphic engines either.
#18
Posted 26 January 2006 - 03:49 AM
I run @ 1280x1024 on a LG Flatron L1715S LCD Display
My machine is currently running SuSE Linux 10.0 and rarely Windoze.
For my laptop:
I run @ 1024x768 on a Samsung NV 5000 laptop LCD screen.
My laptop currently running on PC-BSD 1.0 rc2 (no Windoze)
xboxrulz
My machine is currently running SuSE Linux 10.0 and rarely Windoze.
For my laptop:
I run @ 1024x768 on a Samsung NV 5000 laptop LCD screen.
My laptop currently running on PC-BSD 1.0 rc2 (no Windoze)
xboxrulz
#23
Posted 10 June 2006 - 04:10 PM
I've got 1080 x 1024 running at the moment on my 19 in monitor. I just recently got it, and am very pleased at the amount of room it has compared to my old laptop. The old reason I chose this setting, was because I was trying to find one that looked like the same size of the start menu bar along the bottom as my laptop, because I was used to it, but I have so much extra desktop space now, I love it!
#24
Posted 10 June 2006 - 04:29 PM
1280x1024x32 on an old Sceptre 17" CRT monitor...
It's kinda tiny, but it gives me lots of room to work with when I'm doing graphics.
NOTE: But at higher resolutions, the graphics themselves are smaller, so you get less detail overall. Depends on what you're working with, I guess. Templates/splashes/touchups don't need a whole lot of detail.
It's kinda tiny, but it gives me lots of room to work with when I'm doing graphics.
NOTE: But at higher resolutions, the graphics themselves are smaller, so you get less detail overall. Depends on what you're working with, I guess. Templates/splashes/touchups don't need a whole lot of detail.
Reply to this topic

1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users















