Geez, it looks like everyone and there dog has replied to this posting. It seems strange to pick up so much interest over a simple question like which resolution do you prefer. Sorta weird.
OMG, it's at 1400x1050@85hz too...
This is awesome!
Productivity increasing...power overwhelming...
This is awesome!
Productivity increasing...power overwhelming...
It could've been Services/Class/Display/0000, I'm recalling from memory. Search for a key called 'modes'. Inside are the bit depths, and inside those are the resolutions. For example, my Riva128 driver uses:
Display/0000/Modes/16/1600,1200 which contains the appropriate refresh rates for 1600x1200. Hope this helps!
Display/0000/Modes/16/1600,1200 which contains the appropriate refresh rates for 1600x1200. Hope this helps!
heh I have a 960X720 option, as well as a 1600X1024 option..
how do I find out what refresh rate I'm at? all I know is that it's set to 1600X1200. oh wait, the digital monitor controls says 75 hz, is that good for 1600X1200?
how do I find out what refresh rate I'm at? all I know is that it's set to 1600X1200. oh wait, the digital monitor controls says 75 hz, is that good for 1600X1200?
I was using 1280x1024 on my 19"/V5, until I saw this thread. It's now at 1280x960, and I like it a lot better!
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
OK, here is a representation of the distortion caused by the 5:4 aspect ratio.
This is my old motorcycle. It's gone now... sniff...
The rear wheel should be relatively round in the picture, and is so in the left image. On the right it seems a bit flattened - ie. squished so that it's wider than it is tall. Also, note that the bike looks longer sideways in the right picture.
The white space at the top of the right picture corresponds to the proportion of extra pixels you would get by using the 5:4 ratio over the 4:3 ratio. (Ie. Vertically, a 1280x1024 screen has 64 more pixels (6.7%) than a 1280x960 screen, but it also means that the vertical height of images will be distorted by the same amount. The width is the same.)
Note that the overall composite image is properly viewed on a 4:3 screen. If you're viewing this on a 1280x1024 screen, it's already going to be distorted.
Some of you may not think it's really a big deal, and in reality it isn't, especially for web browsing. However, for pictures it does make a noticeable difference as you can see.
This is my old motorcycle. It's gone now... sniff...
The rear wheel should be relatively round in the picture, and is so in the left image. On the right it seems a bit flattened - ie. squished so that it's wider than it is tall. Also, note that the bike looks longer sideways in the right picture.
The white space at the top of the right picture corresponds to the proportion of extra pixels you would get by using the 5:4 ratio over the 4:3 ratio. (Ie. Vertically, a 1280x1024 screen has 64 more pixels (6.7%) than a 1280x960 screen, but it also means that the vertical height of images will be distorted by the same amount. The width is the same.)
Note that the overall composite image is properly viewed on a 4:3 screen. If you're viewing this on a 1280x1024 screen, it's already going to be distorted.
Some of you may not think it's really a big deal, and in reality it isn't, especially for web browsing. However, for pictures it does make a noticeable difference as you can see.
nice pic representation Eug!!
seems like so many people have fallen victim to the industrys newfound dumbo resolution... and yes, it only matters for viewing pics but come one now, i KNOW some of these people who swear by the 1280x1024 have digital cameras that they view the pics from on their computers, and if not, they surely view other pics anyhow (naked girls maybe?)
i just cant understand why the industry is pushing this non-conforming res?!@#$$%^&
can anyone explain it???
seems like so many people have fallen victim to the industrys newfound dumbo resolution... and yes, it only matters for viewing pics but come one now, i KNOW some of these people who swear by the 1280x1024 have digital cameras that they view the pics from on their computers, and if not, they surely view other pics anyhow (naked girls maybe?)
i just cant understand why the industry is pushing this non-conforming res?!@#$$%^&
can anyone explain it???
When you make a resolution of 1400x1050, do you have to put in EVERY single refresh rate and bit depth. Or can you just put in 32bit and "85" ?? Does it make a difference?
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
<< seems like so many people have fallen victim to the industrys newfound dumbo resolution... and yes, it only matters for viewing pics but come one now, i KNOW some of these people who swear by the 1280x1024 have digital cameras that they view the pics from on their computers, and if not, they surely view other pics anyhow (naked girls maybe?) >>
Heheh, for nekkid grrrrls it doesn't matter because they're all distorted ("augmented"
anyway. In truth I didn't really notice much of a difference at 1280x1024 viewing the few pictures I'd get via email, etc. Sometimes they would look a bit odd, but I could live with it for the extra few pixels of screen resolution you get with 1024 over 960. However, as soon as I started doing more cropping and printing of my own pix from scans or from my digital camera, the distortion became far too irritating. Nothing ever came out exactly the way I wanted it.
<< OMG, it's at 1400x1050@85hz too...
This is awesome! >>
Vinny,
Better update your sig then. So it's working out OK? I notice you have a GTS. I'm also thinking of trying to create a new resolution...1600 is just too much for my humble 19" tube.
LeoV,
Any "gotchas" to running at an created resolution? Shorten tube life?
This is awesome! >>
Vinny,
Better update your sig then.
So it's working out OK? I notice you have a GTS. I'm also thinking of trying to create a new resolution...1600 is just too much for my humble 19" tube.LeoV,
Any "gotchas" to running at an created resolution? Shorten tube life?
I've been trying to figure out how to do this custom resolution thing in W2K, and I'm convinced you can't do it in 2K. The registry keys that Leo V mentioned are not in the 2000 registry, maybe 2K handles resolutions differently. Is there some kind of program that will let you do this?
trmiv, nice icon, but I haven't been successful in modding resolutions under Win2K. Try searching around Google and prodding & poking around the registry and something might come up.
Eug, the whole problem with 1280x1024 really is that it squishes those nekkid grrls and makes them look fat (unless they're lying down, I suppose). So your ideal resolution for that would be 1600x900
Eug, the whole problem with 1280x1024 really is that it squishes those nekkid grrls and makes them look fat (unless they're lying down, I suppose). So your ideal resolution for that would be 1600x900
1280x1024 IS SUCK!
The aspect ratio is just PLAIN AND SIMPLE Off!
All other resolutions divide into 1.3333333
...etc...
1600x1200
1280x960
1024x768
800x600
640x480
1280x1024 divides into 1.25!
Measure your monitors height and width and divide it, you'll get 1.333333333!
Whoever came up with 1280x1024 is a MORON! hehe
The aspect ratio is just PLAIN AND SIMPLE Off!
All other resolutions divide into 1.3333333
...etc...
1600x1200
1280x960
1024x768
800x600
640x480
1280x1024 divides into 1.25!
Measure your monitors height and width and divide it, you'll get 1.333333333!
Whoever came up with 1280x1024 is a MORON! hehe
Whitedog,
That's a blanket statement and your wrong of course. 1280x1024 is great for Windows desktop work. You know quite a few office people have specially designed monitors that are taller than they are wide. These are made to show a full 8.5"x11" page in proper dimensions. I suppose since the AR of these monitors isn't 4:3 they suck too? C'mon.
That's a blanket statement and your wrong of course. 1280x1024 is great for Windows desktop work. You know quite a few office people have specially designed monitors that are taller than they are wide. These are made to show a full 8.5"x11" page in proper dimensions. I suppose since the AR of these monitors isn't 4:3 they suck too? C'mon.
JellyBaby, none at all. Monitors are analog devices, and as such they don't care about resolutions/refreshrates--so long as they're within the horizontal/vertical scan ranges. Most new monitors don't allow setting out-of-range modes, and Windows doesn't allow selecting them, either.
Ok...I dual boot, and Leo's path was pretty much right (a tad off, but close enough ). I'm running 1400x1050x85 and it's great.
Too bad I barely use Win98...I really want to find this in Win2k....but thanks agaun Leo!
). I'm running 1400x1050x85 and it's great.Too bad I barely use Win98...I really want to find this in Win2k....but thanks agaun Leo!
I can't even read text any higher that 1024 x 768 on my 19" monitor. It starts to hurt my eyes after reading for a while at 1280x. I feel for those poor eyes of people running at 1600x!
- Mar 11, 2000
- 24,165
- 1,809
- 126
<< Thanks EvilDonnyboy for the help. I have 1400x1050 @ 90Hz running under W2K. Sweet... >>
HOW!?!?!? I sooooo want to try that in Win 2000. On my 19" monitor 1600x1200 is just too much. (I'm using a Voodoo 3.) EDIT, forget it, I found that post below. The software is Matrox specific.
<< I can't even read text any higher that 1024 x 768 on my 19" monitor. It starts to hurt my eyes after reading for a while at 1280x. >>
You can adjust the font sizes for text. However, it does become problematic in some programs, and on LOTS of websites, if you increase the font size too much. Formatting goes all wonky. I consider this more of a problem of the OS and the software than anything else.
<< Monitors are analog devices, and as such they don't care about resolutions/refreshrates--so long as they're within the horizontal/vertical scan ranges. >>
Leo,
Very well then I shall try the odd resolution of 1400x1050. If I don't post again my this time tomorrow, I have fried my monitor and am seeking replacement.
I notice you mentioned 1392x1044. Any particular reason for those dimensions?
Leo,
Very well then I shall try the odd resolution of 1400x1050. If I don't post again my this time tomorrow, I have fried my monitor and am seeking replacement.
I notice you mentioned 1392x1044. Any particular reason for those dimensions?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter