Could someone point me to a link of a screenshot at 1280x1024?

[GreenLantern]

That seems like a very disproportional, yet common resolution. Could someone point me to a link that'll show that?
Thx

 

[pay]

You probably have a 17" monitor huh? It is dispropertional on a 17" , I used to have one.

 

[Auric]

It's disproportional on any 4:3 display. Size has nothing to do with it; it is the aspect ratio that matters. I would just avoid it for the desktop and use 1280x960 for the games that allow it.

 

[Workin']

I have an older Mitsubishi 21" monitor that I run the desktop at 1280x1024. 1024x768 is a huge waste of all that screen space and there is no other intermediate choice. So here's what I did: I used AutoCad to draw a perfect square, then adjusted the monitor image size controls so that the height and width of the displayed square measured the same using a ruler held up against the screen. Voila', perfect aspect ratio, no distortion. However, with the height adjusted to full display area, there are very small black bands along the sides, since 4:3 is a little wider than 5:4.

Remember, not every monitor's viewable area is EXACTLY 4:3, so if the correct aspect ratio is so important to you then you should use the method I explained above to be sure you have your monitor adjusted correctly. You can't assume that because you are using a 4:3 resolution and have it adjusted to fill the display area on a nominally "4:3" display that the aspect ratio displayed is therefore actually correct.

 

[Poncherelli]

there should be an 1152x864 res available, thats inbetween

 

[Workin']

<< there should be an 1152x864 res available, thats inbetween >>

It sure is but 1280x1024 has 32 percent more pixels. The black lines on the side of the screen are only about 1/16&quot; on my monitor when it is properly adjusted for aspect ration, and that bothers me far less than running at lower resolution would.