Dropped from 1600 x 1200 @ 85 Hz to 1400 x 1050 @ 100Hz

[NuclearFusi0n]

I wish I could get 1600 x 1200 at 100 Hz, 85 is too low for me.
1400 x 1050 is so...cramped
It sure is smooth though, at 100 Hz.

ModeLine "1400x1050" 208.40 1400 1464 1784 1912 1050 1052 1064 1090 #100Hz

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

I wonder if
ModeLine "1536x1152" 224.59 1536 1600 1920 2048 1152 1154 1166 1192 #92Hz

would suit me better...

 

[Imported]

1600x1200 on LCD is awesome..

 

[wfbberzerker]

1024x768 @ 100hz works fine for me...

 

[Colt45]

my 640x480@60 still sucks.

 

[Broohaha]

Originally posted by: Colt45
my 640x480@60 still sucks.

please tell me you're joking

 

[Colt45]

Originally posted by: Broohaha

Originally posted by: Colt45
my 640x480@60 still sucks.

please tell me you're joking

nope

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

I settled on ModeLine "1520x1140" 222.99 1520 1584 1904 2032 1140 1142 1154 1180 #93Hz

Hopefully this is a good compromise between 100 hz and 85 Hz

 

[bunker]

...

 

[pennylane]

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: Broohaha

Originally posted by: Colt45
my 640x480@60 still sucks.

please tell me you're joking

nope

Wow. I'm sorry

 

[Electrode]

1280x1024 @ 75Hz is clear enough for me. Sure beats * @ 60Hz.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: Electrode
1280x1024 @ 75Hz is clear enough for me. Sure beats * @ 60Hz.

I hope that's an LCD you're running.
it's the bastard resolution.

 

[xcript]

Originally posted by: Electrode
1280x1024 @ 75Hz is clear enough for me.

Same here.

Although I recently switched from that to 1280x960@85Hz.

Don't notice much of a difference.

 

[Electrode]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
I hope that's an LCD you're running.

Indeed it is. Samsung SyncMaster 760V.

 

[dman]

If the monitor is capable of displaying both modes, at 100 and 85Hz, I've found that I can't tell a difference between the two.

However, some monitors start to have problems at the higher thresholds even if they can display them, in that case I stick with the lower modes. On my 19" CRT I can do 1600x1200 but it's very tiny, and tough to read... but it looks fine to me. My normal resolution is 1152x864. 1280x### is uncomfortable reading over a long period of time.

 

[Zugzwang152]

1280x1024 @ 75 here. Samsung 191N

 

[ndee]

Originally posted by: Zugzwang152
1280x1024 @ 75 here. Samsung 191N

I have the 191T

 

[Chaotic42]

Anything less than 100Hz hurts my eyes.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

For 85 Hz I can't see the flicker unless I'm REALLY looking for it.

It's a slap in the face, however, when I'm stoned. I just sit down, take one look at my monitor, and go "bleh!"
100 hz makes it tons better. Hopefully 92/93 Hz will work out well.

 

[Anubis]

dual 1600x1200 @ 75Hz works for me

 

[MangoTBG]

Originally posted by: bunker
What, want a fsckin' cookie?

Go post this crap over in video or general hardware where people might give a shlt

You, obviously, gave enough shlt to come in this thread and post




On*Topic=


What is the LCD size that they start to hit 1600x1200? 18 or 19?...I'm thinking I may need to upgrade from my 17"

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

Originally posted by: Anubis
dual 1600x1200 @ 75Hz works for me

ooouch my eyes my eyes! :Q

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

I finally switched to
ModeLine "1536x1152" 224.59 1536 1600 1920 2048 1152 1154 1166 1192 #92Hz
i think this is a great compromise between 1600 x 1200 and 1400 x 1050

 

[SCSIfreek]

1600x1200 @85hz on a 21" Sony works for me It has been this way for years


--Scsi

 

[Tetsuo]

Is your LCD widescreen?