Who actually set their screen resolution to 1600x1200?

[JustAnAverageGuy]

1600x1200 on 2001FP

1600x1200x85Hz on 21" CRT

 

[beyonddc]

Originally posted by: Somniferum
I have the exact same monitor you do, and I was running the desktop @ 1152x864 until recently. I now have the option to run @ 1200x900 -- guess it's a new driver feature. So far it works well.

In games I'll go as high as 1280x1024, but that's about it. I used to play Quake3 @ 1600x1200, but I got tired of the console font being too small to read. I can't really tell the difference anyway, with antialiasing turned on.

Yea.. I would really love to set it to 1600x1200, because I like to have more desktop area, but I can't stand the fact that it's too hard to read words on the screen.

I adusted the DPI like the people suggested on top, but the fonts in the application still very small, so I guess I'll just stick back with 1028x1024 now.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I used to run my MAG 19" at 1600x1200. The monitor was only specced to 66Hz, but I pushed it to 70Hz with some driver and OSD tweaking. It really was at the limit though. Surprisingly, it looked much sharper at 1600x1200, than at 1280x1024, which gave ridiculous amounts of moire interference on grey-color backgrounds. I'm guessing that 1600x1200 was much closer to the "native res" of the shadow-mask that the tube used. It had a fairly sharp triad dot-pitch too, either .25 or .23 or something. Much better than most .28 ones. Only problem, it died in two years, ironically the morning after I had left the system on, while viewing a thread on AT, describing someone else's MAG 19" monitor dying in almost the same manner. No joke. (This place has wierd juju on hardware, let me tell you...)

A supposedly-identical model, purchased several years later, was no-where near the same in terms of build quality, sharpness, cable length/shielding quality, etc. Very disappointing. The original one that died cost $500. The newer one cost not much more than $200 or so.

 

[yhelothar]

Originally posted by: beyonddc

Originally posted by: Somniferum
I have the exact same monitor you do, and I was running the desktop @ 1152x864 until recently. I now have the option to run @ 1200x900 -- guess it's a new driver feature. So far it works well.

In games I'll go as high as 1280x1024, but that's about it. I used to play Quake3 @ 1600x1200, but I got tired of the console font being too small to read. I can't really tell the difference anyway, with antialiasing turned on.

Yea.. I would really love to set it to 1600x1200, because I like to have more desktop area, but I can't stand the fact that it's too hard to read words on the screen.

I adusted the DPI like the people suggested on top, but the fonts in the application still very small, so I guess I'll just stick back with 1028x1024 now.

Did you reboot? You need to reboot for it to change. Also what DPI did you use? Try 120dpi. I prefer the high resolution/high dpi look than the low resolution/low dpi look, everything is just a lot sharper.

 

[Falloutboy]

1600x1200 here on my KDS 19in Avitron. I can't stand it anything lower.

 

[Bateluer]

If my monitor could support a 1600x1200 res, I'd be running at it. As it stands, my 17" LCD only supports 1280x1024.

 

[Gagabiji]

Originally posted by: carage
1920x1200 here...
23inch LCD.

Bragger.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
If my monitor could support a 1600x1200 res, I'd be running at it. As it stands, my 17" LCD only supports 1280x1024.

There is a difference between "supports" and "recommended", considering many 19" CRTs can run 1600x1200 but most are definately NOT meant run the resolution by default because most cannot display fine detail correctly making it difficult to read text, and that is usually not even considering the terrible refresh rates that most 19"s can barely push (usually 60Hz @ 1600x1200)

 

[duragezic]

I have a Samsung 19" 900NF that I always used to run at 1280x1024 @ 85hz (recommended timing) but I gave 1600x1200 @ 85hz a try since I've been up here at college and it is kick ass!! I got mad screen space and it still looks great, and plus it'd have to be 85hz refresh or it's out of the question for me. 60hz kills my eyes and 75hz is only tolerable for a couple hours. Although my monitor can go up to 2048x1536, it's basically like others described here and blurry/unreadable text. Although 1800x1440 is usable, its only at 60hz or 70hz, so I don't use it, but I have before for a large picture I was editing.

Basically if you're l33t and have a nice, p1mp 19" monitor like the 900NF, then yes it is very usable.

 

[beyonddc]

Originally posted by: duragezic
I have a Samsung 19" 900NF that I always used to run at 1280x1024 @ 85hz (recommended timing) but I gave 1600x1200 @ 85hz a try since I've been up here at college and it is kick ass!! I got mad screen space and it still looks great, and plus it'd have to be 85hz refresh or it's out of the question for me. 60hz kills my eyes and 75hz is only tolerable for a couple hours. Although my monitor can go up to 2048x1536, it's basically like others described here and blurry/unreadable text. Although 1800x1440 is usable, its only at 60hz or 70hz, so I don't use it, but I have before for a large picture I was editing.

Basically if you're l33t and have a nice, p1mp 19" monitor like the 900NF, then yes it is very usable.

Lucky~! I want 1600x1200 screen resolution...

 

[naruto1988]

my KDSusa 17sx LCD runs perfect at 1280x1024x75 =) wish i had rage's setup. 1600x1200 on 2001FP.

 

[BFG10K]

Sony CPD-G420 19": 1600x1200@85Hz.