Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!

What's the resolution of your display? If you have more than one, pick the one with the highest value...

1/1: What's the resolution of your display? If you have more than one, pick the one with the highest value...

640x480 6 (0.13%)
640x512 1 (0.02%)
800x600 26 (0.56%)
800x640 5 (0.11%)
1024x768 1,048 (22.42%)
1024x820 52 (1.11%)
1280x854 (15" PB) 770 (16.47%)
1280x960 135 (2.89%)
1280x1024 907 (19.41%)
1440x900 (17" PB) 429 (9.18%)
1680x1050 331 (7.08%)
1600x1200 467 (9.99%)
1920x1200 266 (5.69%)
2560x1600 69 (1.48%)
Some other value 162 (3.47%)
Other polls | 4,674 votes | 27 comments

What's the resolution of your display? If you have more than one, pick the one with the highest value... | 27 comments | Create New Account
Click here to return to the 'What's the resolution of your display? If you have more than one, pick the one with the highest value...' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
reply
Authored by: Jwink3101 on Nov 25, '04 11:57:13PM

1280x1024 is what i voted for becuase that is what my studio display uses. All other times i am on my 12" with 1024x768.

I was actually surprised to find that i can actually live with the lowe resolution but it is nice to have the extra space. The only time i have problem is with web design because, unlike in photoshop working with images, you can't scale the page to design and still have the page.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: RideMan on Nov 28, '04 01:23:35PM

I'm probably the only person on the planet who actually uses that oddball 1152 x 870 resolution...it gives me pretty much the same size elements on my $cheap 17" monitor as 1024 x 768, but it gives me a little bit more space on the screen. It's especially nice when displaying VNC windows of 1024 x 768 screens.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: mkutny on Nov 28, '04 04:20:06PM

Me too! I use it on an old 17" CRT when using dual displays on my G4 iBook. The iBook, of course, uses 1024x768, which is just right for its screen size.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: stokini on Nov 29, '04 04:48:34PM

Me too! I use 1152 x 870 on my eMac. I was surprised that it wasn't included in the list. Many desktop picture sites have that ratio as a download option.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: szabesz on Dec 07, '04 06:17:38AM

Mee too :) A second (17") monitor for both my 17" iMac 800MHz at work and for my iBook G4 at home. Pixel sizes in this resolution are about the same on the TFT and the CRT.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: jaymcb74 on Dec 08, '04 05:26:18AM

For those that can remember, 1152x870 was the original fixed two page resolution used by the old black and white 21" displays from Apple. Which is what got me hooked on it and I still use it to this day J;-)

---
Yea, if it will be done, even in spite, then lend thine hand to the masses lest it be done incorrectly or worse by those not versed in the ways of the Dogcow



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: _Gekko_ on Nov 26, '04 09:31:48AM

I have no idea if this is a common resolution, but it is the best I can get on my SuperMatch 21" Sync on Green Display dating from 1993 ! Still happily using it with OS X on my G4 !



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 870
Authored by: Shawn Parr on Nov 30, '04 11:06:52AM

Me too. I have a Radius and an Apple (both 17") and this seems to be the optimal resolution for me.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Triplets rock.
Authored by: nite77 on Nov 26, '04 10:30:44AM

3x 1600x1200 on 19" Nokia 446PROs. :)

---
/Nite - "can't rain all the time"
[ http://www.nitesade.net ]



[ Reply to This | # ]
monitors
Authored by: wolfy on Nov 26, '04 10:55:23AM

I have two displays - a 23" Apple Cinema (1st gen) at 1920x1200, and a 19" Samsung Syncmaster at 1280x1024. I occassionally wish for a little more room, but don't have room on my desk for a 3rd monitor or a larger replacement for either of the 2 I use.

---
Wolfy



[ Reply to This | # ]
1920 x 1440
Authored by: Anonymous on Nov 26, '04 01:58:28PM

As an Art Director I use 1920 x 1440 on both my LaCie Electro Blue iV 19" Why are not listed higher 4:3 resolutions ?


---
Its impossible to create a foolproof device because fools are very ingenious people.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1920 x 1440
Authored by: robg on Nov 27, '04 01:48:45PM

Because I didn't know about them? :). What are some of the other more common ones; I'll add them to the poll...

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1920 x 1440
Authored by: Anonymous on Nov 29, '04 10:28:33AM

Theese are the resolutions listed on my displays preferences that are not listed here:

832 x 624 (I used this on my old 7300)
1152 x 864
1152 x 870
1344 x 1008 (weird)
1792 x 1344 (double weird!)
1856 x 1392
2048 x 1536 (really tiny!!)

Or just pick two 4 digits random numbers...


---
Its impossible to create a foolproof device because fools are very ingenious people.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1344 x 1008 (weird)
Authored by: CarlRJ on Dec 07, '04 12:34:18PM

For what it's worth, my girlfriend's powermac is running at 1344 x 1008 (at some phenomenal refresh rate, 102hz, I think?) on a 19" Dell monitor (near giveaway from her old job). I'd never run across that resolution before, but the display looks fantastic, sharp, flicker-free, and she likes it a lot (1024 x 768 was not enough real estate, 1280 x 1024 wasn't the right aspect ratio, and 1600 x 1200 made everything too small).

Me, I'm quite happy with 1600 x 1200 on an old 21" Sony at work, and my 1280 x 854 15" powerbook, everywhere else.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Lacie Displays [OT]
Authored by: viscaria on Dec 07, '04 09:55:33PM

How do you like your Lacie disply? I've been looking into buying a 22 inch electron blue, but I haven't seen any good reviews. (Meaning the reviews were not well written, intelligent or thurough; not that they reflected poorly on the product)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Original Apple Cinema Display...
Authored by: Welles Goodrich on Nov 27, '04 09:54:44AM

1600 X 1024... native resolution of the original Apple Cinema Display



[ Reply to This | # ]
Original Apple Cinema Display...
Authored by: Ladd Morse on Dec 07, '04 02:53:39PM

Same here -- a little surprised to see that resolution omitted in the poll...



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 768
Authored by: Aet on Nov 29, '04 12:43:20PM

1152 x 768, the ol' TiBook resolution.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1152 x 768
Authored by: googoo on Nov 30, '04 10:00:30AM

Me too!



[ Reply to This | # ]
3800 x 2400
Authored by: fx4m on Nov 30, '04 12:56:07AM

IBM 200 DPI



[ Reply to This | # ]
You work on that? Isn't OS X a bit small?
Authored by: jigu on Dec 02, '04 02:12:41PM

Can you really work on that or is this a joke? Cause 200dpi must be hard on the eyes with OSX - or are you already running OS X 10.5 Lion which scales all widgets to any resolution? :-)



[ Reply to This | # ]
Most People either using an iBook or 12" PB
Authored by: bedouin on Nov 30, '04 03:10:29PM

From the looks of the poll results it seems most people are either using iBooks or 12" Powerbooks; kind of interesting.

As for myself, I run two displays: one 17" studio display at 1280x1024, and an old 17" Trinitron at 1024x768. Refresh rates lower than 85 Hz on a CRT really hurt my eyes nowadays. On the iBook my choices are much more limited.

BTW, I have a Sony Multiscan 200ES that sporadically gets very bright, or very dim. The thing is, it will be fine for <b>days</b>, and then act up for a few minutes. I thought it was going to die, but it has been like this for months and still keeps going. I took it to a repairman but he wasn't able to reproduce it. I'm sure it's not video card related because I was able to reproduce the same results with it attached to an eMac and iBook. Any ideas?



[ Reply to This | # ]
Most People either using an iBook or 12" PB
Authored by: Angostura on Dec 06, '04 10:28:53AM

or FP 15" G4 iMacs



[ Reply to This | # ]
1184 x 888
Authored by: spodieodie on Nov 30, '04 07:53:29PM

I use 1184 x 888 at 101 Hz refresh at millions of colors on my Samsung SyncMaster 700IFT. I reach this resolution through DisplayConfigX - an awesome app that lets you choose resolutions based on your monitor's actual abilities, rather than what Apple constrains us to.

The 101 Hz refresh rate is killer! No flicker at all doing anything. DisplayConfigX rocks!



[ Reply to This | # ]
17" PB - lame display
Authored by: hafman on Dec 03, '04 02:21:55PM

I have a 17" PB so Im limited to the terrible 1440x960. If only Apple would catch up with the current technology and bring out a PB with at least 1900x1600 (or whatever matches the aspect ratio), then finally if they can get the DPI up we can move past the font smoothing nonsense and have the text be as clear as XP. Its sad to see Apple lag behind so much on the display technology and the software to render fonts properly. Maybe they are held back by Adobe's font engine.



[ Reply to This | # ]
1920x1440 (CRT)
Authored by: a1291762 on Dec 05, '04 09:13:40PM

Presumably the 1920x option was for a widescreen LCD. I've got a 21" CRT running at 1920x1440 (through a KVM that *claims* to support "up to" 1600x1200).

The KVM lets me access Linux, Windows and MacOS machines (though I tend to use VNC to connect to the Mac so I can use gvim over an SSH tunnel).



[ Reply to This | # ]
other
Authored by: force_quit on Dec 08, '04 02:48:22PM

1152 x 870 each on dual 22" monitors



[ Reply to This | # ]