What desktop screen resolution do you use?

[lonewolff]

I was wondering what resolution you guys use these days for your normal day to day use?

On one system I run at 1440 x 960 (19" LCD)
On the other I run 1024 x 768 (17" CRT )

[stoneCold]

Notebook: 1680x1050 (16:10 - 15.4")
Workstation: 1280x1024 (4:3 - 19" CRT)

[betajaen]

I have two monitors on my main computer;

Primary: 1680x1050 (16:10 - 22" TFT)
Secondary: 1280x1024 (4:3 19" TFT)

My laptop is one of those ultra-small ones; so it's 800x480

[Praetorian]

I've got two on my dev computer:

Main: 17" LCD @ 1280x1024
Secondary: 16" CRT @ 1600x1200 (very old, blurry CRT... but it beats having just one monitor)

[Kojack]

I've got 3 displays:
Left: 1050x1680 (22" dell in portrait mode)
Middle: 1680x1050 (22" dell in landscape mode) primary monitor
Right: 1024x768 (42" Plasma)
But right now I've only got one of my geforces in the computer, and only 2 of the 3 outputs can be active at once, so I select them based on what I'm doing (watch videos on tv, do general stuff and games on the 2 lcds).

[nullsquared]

1440x900 on my main 19", other room 19", and other-other room 17"

[DanielSefton]

22" LCD (PC): 1650x1050
24" iMac: 1920x1200

[volca]

Work: 1680x1050
Home: 1280x1024

both TN LCD's

[nikki]

3360x1050

Ok, ok, it's two displays, 1680x1050 each.

[JohnJ]

Work (24"): 1920x1080
Home desktop (17"): 1280x1024
Laptop (13"): 1440x900

[mkultra333]

1280 x 1024 on a 22 inch CRT.

[:wumpus:]

monitor 1: 1920x1200 (24")
monitor 2: 1280x1024 (19")
laptop: 1280x768 (14", I think)
beamer: 800x600

[reptor]

19" cathod-ray-tube 4:3 1024x768x32bit 85 Hz

I can't go higher than that with the resolution (well technically I can but it's not so good). This is really the optimum resolution for this display.

Also the frequency is at the optimal value, 85 Hz. I could set it higher but then the quality of the picture will be worse; the components of the monitor are not able to keep up to provide as good quality as when running at 85 Hz. I've seen people crank it up to 100 Hz without thinking about it and I just see that the quality is worse then and it provides no advantage in anything else so what is the point. The point is they believe a bigger number is better when in fact it is not.

[nullsquared]

The point is they believe a bigger number is better when in fact it is not.

"Now with a CAS of 12!"

"Damn, must be some really good RAM!"

[betajaen]

@reptor

Obviously you have a reason why your sticking with a CRT than a TFT display. I would imagine it may be due to the range of possible colours, or how black is black, or the perhaps the refresh rates - but I thought those kinds of problems have been fixed for a long time now. May I ask what it is?

[reptor]

I have nothing against Liquid-Crystal-Displays.

I purchased a complete computer system in late 2001. Since then I have upgraded the graphics card from a GeForce 2 to a GeForce 6600 GT, mother board, processor from Athlon XP 1600+ to Sempron 2600+, mouse, memory (original was 256 MB of 133 MHz SDRAM, now it's 2 GB of DDR), CD-->DVD, gotten some more hard disk drives (for free). Most of the upgrades were done so that I got components from other people who didn't need them anymore and were happy to just give them away (I did give some components in return sometimes). So I've not paid much for the upgrades. I only really used a lot of cash to buy the new graphics card, everything else except the DVD and mouse is pretty much stuff someone didn't need and I was happy to take it. I would not have bought those things at all so my system would not have been upgraded this much if my family had not upgraded their systems and leaving parts unused which I could get for free.

Oh, and I did need to replace the original power supply unit, because it said BANG! With a flash. I'm sure I would still use it if it would work.

There has been no good reason to change the monitor. This Samsung SyncMaster 19" CRT is very good. A negative would be that it takes much more space from my desk compared to a 19" LCD. Also the heat generation is a negative. It's 31.5 degrees Celcius here in this room at the moment and the monitor is not helping!

But really, the "usage pattern" of this computer system is such that there has not been a need to upgrade the system like every 2 years. I do play games but I don't consider myself to be a "gamer". The few demanding 3D games I play have not been enough to warrant the cost of a new system. And I don't see a point to change just the monitor - if I decide to spend that much money then I will spend even more and buy a whole new system and not just a monitor.

Believe it or not but I just tried the demo of the ArmA 2 game - it is a very demanding game hardware-wise and I was surprised I could even play it on this computer. It's not enjoyable like it is intended to be but it runs.

I am planning to buy a new computer in the few coming months. You can see from this post that I am not a person who absolutely needs to have the latest and shiniest thing sold. I don't see the point when I don't do so much gaming, most of my computer use is surfing online, doing some writing, and programming. No need to upgrade the system often if I only do those kinds of things, the little gaming I do is the only thing why I need a more powerful computer, and that's why I have been able to postpone buying a new system this long. And really, the monitor I have is good, there is no technical reason why it should be replaced. But I am sure when I buy a new computer I will also buy a new monitor, and it will likely be a widescreen LCD.

[betajaen]

That is a good enough reason as any. I thought you might of been one of those people who prefer CRTs over TFTs due to better displays of colour, blackness or refresh rates!

Let's hope a family member decides to do an upgrade; and you get a free monitor out of it.

[mkultra333]

Until recently you needed a CRT if you wanted stereoscopic support too. Thats why I deliberately bought a large second hand CRT. Now there are LCD alternatives too, but you need a really good LCD, either a specifically designed one (Zalman or iz3d) for use with polarized glasses or a 120Hz model for use with the new Nvidia shutter glasses.

[RedEyeCoder]

Work: 2x 22" (1680x1050)
Desktop: 1x 24" (1920x1200), 1x 20" (1600x1200)
Laptop: 17" (1440x900)

I am seriously considering getting a Samsung 305T (30" @ 2560 x 1600) *drools*...

[lonewolff]

That is a good enough reason as any. I thought you might of been one of those people who prefer CRTs over TFTs due to better displays of colour, blackness or refresh rates!

I like to keep a hold of a CRT for projects where I use shutter glasses for true 3D apps. The LCD's cant switch fast enough to give a good 3D effect.
I have managed to push my CRT to 120Hz (although the max is meant to be 80hz). It doesn't worry me too much if the screen goes bang.

[Kojack]

I am seriously considering getting a Samsung 305T (30" @ 2560 x 1600) *drools*...

I've been thinking of getting a 305T.

I'm still trying to decide between getting a 305T or a third Dell 2209WA with a Matrox Triplehead adapter (so I can play games at 5040x1050 extreme wide screen).
The 305T costs about 1.5x the price of a 2209WA and triplehead.

I'm also thinking of getting a 15" or 17" touch screen, so I can use it for control panels in games like X-Plane and Black Shark.

Some 5" saitek instrument panels would be fun too: http://uk.coolest-gadgets.com/saitek-pr ... ly-arrives

[Evak]

1600x1200 on a single core 3000+ desktop with 7800GS AGP

[Arc]

3760x1600 (30" 2560x1600 + pivoted 20" 1600x1200)

[Speedo]

Main monitor 1600x1200
Second monitor 1680x1050
Both are 20" LCDs (the secondary being widescreen).

[Lizard]

primary monitor : viewsonic 19" CRT - 1600 x 1200

secondary monitor : dell 15" CRT - 1024 x 768.