Why 1280x1024?

[Zucarita9000]

And not 1280x960? Most 19" CRTs and LCDs have an optimum resolution of 1280x1024, wich isn't a standard 1.33:1 aspect (or 4:3). All Apple displays have a 1280x960 resolution, so I was wondering why is different in Windows. Things look stretched. Who the hell came up with the idea to make 1280x1024 the standard instead of 1280x960??

 

[merlocka]

1280x1024 is 1:1.25 which will look squished on a 1:1.333 CRT.

I'm not sure why it became a popular resultion, but I think this has been covered a few times in Video forum. Try the search button.

Also, 1280x1024 will not look squished on a LCD if that is it's native resolution. Other resolutions would look stretched however.

 

[dullard]

1) LCDs are often made with a different aspect ratio.
2) You can get fonts, icons, and other things that are designed to display properly at the different aspect ratio.
3) You can fit more information in (very handy with Excel files or getting a few more lines of code on your screen when programming).
4) The distortion is less than 7% - so for most people it doesn't matter. Of course if you must look at perfect circles then seeing them 6% thinner (or 6% taller) may be a bother. It just depends on your use.
5) On a CRT you can stretch the screen horizontally or vertically. I bet you that 99% of people after stretching their view don't maintain the 4:3 ratio. Instead they try to fit it as big as possible regardless of the final ratio. Thus getting nearly the same ~7% error anyways. Or I guess you can combine the two - get a bit more information on the screen, but adjust the monitor settings so that at 1280x1024 there is no stretching at all...

 

[Zucarita9000]

I see... I'll try looking for it in the video forum, thanks.

 

[astroview]

That's my resolution, I'm used to it, and it doesn't bother me. If you see it enough you get ok with it. I don't see the big deal here.

 

[CubicZirconia]

this kind of explains why it exists

"Why does this resolution exist? What is the reason that manufacturers of screens and video boards include such a resolution in their products? Because 10 years ago there were some models of computer monitors included in Silicon Graphics workstations that had almost quad (1.25) physical proportions. Yes, they were less rectangular. They were looked almost quad and this resolution fits them perfect. But not today's monitors. Damn tradition."

 

[Kyteland]

also look here

 

[Auric]

This comes up a lot. I remember a thread a couple months ago where I commented it was a cludgy legacy resolution and some folks were getting all defensive about their cherished "hi-tech" Distorto-Vision LCD's. LOL. I have held off on getting one for this reason as it is a big jump performance and cost wise to 1600x1200 -especially when adding the "necessity" of the latest and greatest video card and CPU just to maintain gaming playability. Perhaps I will have to look into those overpriced Apple models...

 

[stranger707]

Great post, CubicZirconia. One of the reasons I enjoy cruising the AnandTechforums is that I learn something new each time.

 

[Auric]

I did a quick search and did not find any Apple LCD's with 1280x960 res. At least that could have explained a higher price if they were custom spec. It seems manufacturers do not want to limit potential sales as many viddy cards have been sold that are not supplied with 1280x960 by default. It is such a minor thing to correct it is infuriating that this big dumb ball has started rolling in the wrong direction, as 'twere. Let's start an ineffectual petition!