or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › What's your ideal resolution?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

What's your ideal resolution?

post #1 of 25
Thread Starter 
I work in 1280x1024 on a 19" viewsonic.

I'd work in 1600x1200, but my vid card can't push it (corporate IBM Netcrapsta)

I think the iBook has a great pixel density!

I would love to see a 15" LCD iMac with ibook density. I'm guessing that would be around 1280x1024.

Let Apple know what you want here!
You're going sane in a crazy world!
Reply
You're going sane in a crazy world!
Reply
post #2 of 25
1280x1024 on a 17" monitor (probably 16" viewable) is ideal for me.
post #3 of 25
To lose 20 pounds and to be a better person.

Oh, and I quite dig 1024x768 on a 15" LCD. That's pretty close to 1" onscreen equaling 1" in real life, which I like. Makes drawing and doing screen resolution work easier to me, somehow.

I like the 17" Studio Display, but it seems so small! That's more pixel area than what I run on my 21" CRT Studio Display at work (1152x870).

I'm sure I could get used to it though, if my idiot company wants to buy me one.

But I've always dug the 15" Studio Display and I'm excited that everything seems to be pointing to the new iMac having that size/resolution, so that'll be really cool for me.
post #4 of 25
My ideal resolution is whatever <a href="http://www.pc.ibm.com/europe/pcnews/accessories/options_op1.html" target="_blank">this</a> has
post #5 of 25
With the current implementation of OS X, I could easily work with 4x the pixel density of the TiBook. I guess that would make it 2308x1740!!! The beauty of OS X is that you can scale icons and text to any size. I wouldn't mind the tiny widgets because I'm far-sighted, and don't have trouble with little itty bitty things like nearsighted people do.

Once super-high resolution display technology (200 ppi and up) is available, I expect Apple will introduce scalable widgets to the OS.

Yes, Groverat, I know Microsoft has had scalable widgets since Win 95, and I've always thought the extent of UI customization was one of the nicest features built in to Windows.
post #6 of 25
[quote]Originally posted by Whisper:
<strong>My ideal resolution is whatever <a href="http://www.pc.ibm.com/europe/pcnews/accessories/options_op1.html" target="_blank">this</a> has </strong><hr></blockquote>

200 ppi tech is here!!! :eek:

Way to go, IBM!

Now if only I could run it from a Mac (and afford it) i'm in like Flint!
post #7 of 25
[quote]Originally posted by tonton:
<strong>

200 ppi tech is here!!! :eek:

Way to go, IBM!

Now if only I could run it from a Mac (and afford it) i'm in like Flint!</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yeah, $17k+ is a bit much for a monitor . But the rest of it's pretty cool . Why do you think it won't work on a mac? Are none of our video cards capable of that resolution?
post #8 of 25
I'd run 1600 x 1200 on my 17" ASD if it would run over 72Hz.

Hell, I'd run it at 2048 x 1536 if it ran at over 72Hz.

And people wonder why my glasses get thicker every year...

*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
*Registered March 1, 1999*
Member #14
Reply
post #9 of 25
1024x768 on my iMac works pretty well for me, but just about any resolution above that would be better. I've got very good eyesight, so small text isn't a problem.

1280x1024 on a 17" LCD would be sweet.
I'm not going anywhere.
Reply
I'm not going anywhere.
Reply
post #10 of 25
1280 x 960 on my 17 inch ASD

1024 x 768 on a 15 inch display
post #11 of 25
Perfectly happy at 1600x1024 (22") not a pixel too little, not a pixel too many.
post #12 of 25
I hate limits. I want a TiBook with up to, like, 1600 x whatever. Then I can choose depending on my task.
In a fast German car I'm amazed that I survived. An airbag saved my life. - Radiohead
Reply
In a fast German car I'm amazed that I survived. An airbag saved my life. - Radiohead
Reply
post #13 of 25
I run 1600 x 1200 on a 21-inch Sony GDM-F500 monitor. Simply stunning. In fact, I wish OS X *wouldn't* make everything the same size, regardless of resolution -- I'd *like* to see the fonts, menus, widgets, etc. a little smaller, the way it is in lesser OS's (i.e., everything else).

But boy, that 1600 x 1200 x Millions, at 75 Hz, is sexy. (Higher than 75 would be nice, but I don't mind a 75 refresh rate. Lower than that, though, and it tends to suck . . . )

I don't think this is that unusual; I can accomplish this with the stock video card in a G4 Cube 450/CD-RW.
post #14 of 25
I think 1600 x 1200 is the limit over DVI/ADC at the moment, so I'll have that please.
post #15 of 25
at the moment i'm pushing 1280x1024 on two 21" sonys, and 1600x1024 on my 24" sony. the last one is great for watching movies, and all are running at 85Hz, so it's not bad on the eyes.

total overkill for one machine though.

(but i picked up the 21's for under $200 ea.)
post #16 of 25
i have a lacie electron blue 22, i run it at 1600x1200. under OS X the higher the better, i had it at 1920x1440 and it looked great, text was still readable, it was at 60hz though and it hurt my eyes. my monitor can do up to 2048x1526 @ 85hz, under OS X the higher the better so long as your refresh stays above 75 is what i say

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: CapnPyro ]</p>
post #17 of 25
1280x1084 on my 21" monitor. I do find 1600x1200 just too small, especially after a long day looking at the screen... <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
Trying hard to think of a new signature...
Reply
post #18 of 25
What about New Year's Resolutions?
phok cignachurs
Reply
phok cignachurs
Reply
post #19 of 25
I love my Ti's screen. I don't think I'd like anything else, unless it was a Cinema Display.... The iBook's screen is too small, in my opinion.
"It's not like Windows users don't have any power; I think they are happy with Windows, and that's an incredibly depressing thought." -Steve Jobs
Reply
"It's not like Windows users don't have any power; I think they are happy with Windows, and that's an incredibly depressing thought." -Steve Jobs
Reply
post #20 of 25
1536 x 1024 on the TiBook's screen
post #21 of 25
I want Macs to have true 16:9 HD resolutions, 1920X1080 on a 24" LCD and 1280X720 on a 16" TiBook dislay. iBook is perfect the way it is, 4:3. 15" iMac should be true 4:3 1280X960. Axe 15" LCDs since iMac has one and make 17" 4:3 1600X1200. That is my opinion of a perfect display line up

[ 12-12-2001: Message edited by: Keeksy ]</p>
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
14" iBook
700MHz G3
640MB RAM

Kecksy's Korner
Reply
post #22 of 25
I run a 22" LaCie at 1600*1200 85Hz. I'll run higher res, but at 75Hz - I can't stand the flicker at that refresh rate. So anything higher res would also have to be high refresh.
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
B&W G3/350 22" La Cie II, 12" PowerBook, 67 Mustang, 96 Honda Pan European
Reply
post #23 of 25
It'd be (really) cool to have 16:9 widescreens on all the pro models, and 4:3 on the consumer.

HMMm!
post #24 of 25
Just give me an actual honest-to-goodness Apple PowerMac 3D workstation, with some sort of kick-arse 3D card that is optimized for Maya, and can run a brace (that is two...) of Cinema Display units with no problems, and I will be happy...!
post #25 of 25
I'm perfectly happy running my iMac at 1024 x 768 (75hz)

I don't notice any flicker, the text size is just about right in OS 9 (Don't want it any smaller though) Text is too big in OS X but i'm sure I could learn to change that.

Anyone tried running OS X in 640x480? It made me laugh anyway

TMA
Think different. But still think.
Reply
Think different. But still think.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › What's your ideal resolution?