Why 1280x1024 and not 1280x960?

[DPmaster]

Most of the other "standard" video resolutions seem to be in a 0.75 ratio (or 1.33 ratio depending on how you look at it). What I mean is

1. 640x480 --> 480/640 = 0.75
2. 800x600 --> 600/800 = 0.75
3. 1024x768 --> 768/1024 = 0.75
4. 1600x1200 --> 1200/1600 = 0.75

So why is it that 1280x1024 seems to be a more popular resolution than 1280x960? Any ideas?

 

[Wag]

Because it's a standard res on the Mac.

 

[fr]

Most 17"-19" LCDs are 5:4, not 4:3. Otherwise, I would use 1280x960 to get the proper 4:3 ratio.

 

[Robor]

I use 1280x960 on my 22" CRT.

 

[GtPrOjEcTX]

b/c its my 1800FP's native resolution at home and my work Samsung 191T native resolution at work.

 

[Reliant]

I use 1280x960.

 

[Dman877]

1280x1024 ownzers all over 1280x960 that's why.

 

[VIAN]

I don't know, but I use 1280x1024 because more games support that resolution - also being that its my CRT's optimal resolution.

 

[JBT]

1280x960 here, I donno why anyone with a CRT would use 1280x1024 unless they like mushed desktops.

 

[VIAN]

1280x960 here, I donno why anyone with a CRT would use 1280x1024 unless they like mushed desktops.

My CRT displays a 1280x1024 fine with black bars on the sides.

 

[humanentity]

i use 1152x864 on my 17" crt.

 

[Shinei]

I use 1280x1024 when I play games, mostly because that's what resolution my monitor can maximally support, and what games offer as an option... I would imagine the greater vertical resolution is helpful in gaming, or something. I don't know, I just play games at whatever my system can max out at.

 

[Steg55]

I have been pondering that for a while.....

I believe it is for TFT's at a 5:4 ratio.
My 17" CRT looks better at 1280*960 so that is what i use - probebly because it is a standard 4:3 screen.

And humanentity - that is a odd one - i have never seen anyone use that res before *has a look at driver options window* oh yeh - its there but ive never seen it before.....

Steg

 

[Saist]

maybe it's just me, but on all my systems, 1280*1024 looks more natural than 1280*960. So that's what I use.

 

[vshah]

Originally posted by: Saist
maybe it's just me, but on all my systems, 1280*1024 looks more natural than 1280*960. So that's what I use.

same...960 looks squished, 1024 looks normal..so i stick to it.

-Vivan

 

[BFG10K]

1280 x 1024 is a distorted resolution on CRTs. Perfect circles are not perfect circles for example.

1280 x 960 is the correct resolution.

 

[Steve]

Indeed. However most displays produce a distorted image at that resolution since their dots/pixels are not square enough. Ever read a monitor's specs and notice horizontal and vertical dot pitches?

 

[boran]

last I knew that resolution originated in the way back old days when video memory and adressing it was very tough etc, and 1024 is a power of 2 and was thus easier to adress than 960

 

[Peter]

Standard CRT tubes are 4:3 width:height ratio. There ain't no debating that 1280x1024 _IS_ a distorted resolution on a CRT, no matter how many people think this is "natural". 1280x960 matches the tube's aspect ratio, and produces undistorted image and font rendering.

1280x1024 TFT screens however do have 5:4 ratio, giving you properly square shaped pixels at this resolution.

The resolution is so common because in the ancient times when it was invented, getting the maximum resolution out of the top end cards was the goal - and some airhead came up with the fact that a 1- or 2-MByte VGA card can produce exactly 1024 lines, so that's what they did. CAD and DTP users thoroughly HATED it, and they still do.

 

[Peter]

sm8000, the CRT dot pitches are nothing to do with where actual pixels end up and how large they are. That's just the physical limit to how small a pixel may be before it blurs.

 

[Shamrock]

I dont think it matters really. I mean, if you have 1280 x 960, any smart person will just adjust his/her monitor and stretch the screen to it's limits, therefore highly resembling 1280x1024. exactly how much diference would you notice after you stretch your monitor's screen to it's viewable image?

So, IMO, either works fine

 

[irwincur]

1280x1024 is a legacy resolution. Sure it is not right, but I actually like it more than the more proper 4:3 1280x960. Whatever the case, it all boils down to personal choice, and use.

 

[jiffylube1024]

I've always hated 1280X1024, and now that I have a 19" LCD, I just have to live with it (but at least on the LCD, it's a native resolution, unlike CRT's) .

I hate 'square' resolutions and much prefer widescreen resolutions in general; like our field of vision, I prefer a wider plane of sight as opposed to a square view.

That is one place where I think LCD's have taken a step backwards - we should be going to 16:9 ratios by now dammit!

Although, I guess for the office, square resolutions make much more sense. Widescreen resolutions would be great on huge monitors for displaying two pages of text side by side, but for displaying a single page, they aren't very practical. Unless you use the rotating kind of LCD's, like some of Samsung's, for example .

 

[Peter]

This is not about square vs. wide resolutions, it's about square vs. distorted _pixels_.

 

[skace]

Because I'd have to fix the geometry settings for 1280x960 and frankly, I'm very lazy. Plus, regardless of distortion, I'd actually lose desktop space going from 1280x1024 to 1280x960. If I go anywhere from 1280 it will be up to 1600.