Screen Resolution

in General Discussion edited January 2014
I was just wondering what screen res. people are using now that OS X is here.

In 9 i used 1024x768, but with X i find i like 1152x870, though 1024x768 is still usable...anything less I couldn't use though.


  • Reply 1 of 23
    1280x960 on a 19" flat CRT
  • Reply 2 of 23
    Same exact as brad.
  • Reply 3 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    oh yeah guess we should tell monitor size since that has alot to do with it.

    17" CRT Apple Studio Display
  • Reply 4 of 23
    I use 1024x768 on a 15" flat screen imac, 800x600 looks terrible on this computer.
  • Reply 5 of 23
    emaneman Posts: 7,204member
    1024x768 on a 15" NEC LCD.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    paulpaul Posts: 5,278member
    1280X854 15.1" LCD widescreen + 1024X768 on 20" TV (sometimes)
  • Reply 7 of 23
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    1024*768 on 15" TFT and 1280*1024 on 19" CRT

    [ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: Defiant ]</p>
  • Reply 8 of 23
    powerdocpowerdoc Posts: 8,123member
    1152 * 870 on 17 inch CRT

    I used to have 1024 per 768 under Classic, but 1152 per 870 is better on mac OS X.

    [ 12-07-2002: Message edited by: Powerdoc ]</p>
  • Reply 9 of 23
    1600x1024 on an SGI 1600SW widescreen LCD, and I've got an SGI 17" CRT sitting next to it that runs at 1280x960.
  • Reply 10 of 23
    ebbyebby Posts: 3,110member
    1600x1200 85Hz, 19" Monitor, OS 9

  • Reply 11 of 23
    quaremquarem Posts: 254member
    1280x1024 on 17" Apple Studio Display

    1024x768 on 15" CRT beside it.
  • Reply 12 of 23
    funkyfunky Posts: 27member
    1024x768 on 14.1 " inch screen iBook.
  • Reply 13 of 23
    I don't know how anyone can stand running 1280x1024 on a CRT. It isn't a true 4:3 ratio and it makes everything look "fat".

  • Reply 14 of 23
    1152x870 on a 17 studio display.
  • Reply 15 of 23
    chychchych Posts: 860member
    1280x1024 Samsung 17" LCD (native)

    Geez when I was using a 17" CRT I had it on 1280x1024, anything smaller was too small. My vision has gotten worse since then
  • Reply 16 of 23
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    [quote]Originally posted by Brad:

    <strong>I don't know how anyone can stand running 1280x1024 on a CRT. It isn't a true 4:3 ratio and it makes everything look "fat".

    Yuck. </strong><hr></blockquote>

    Read a book on displays, troll.

  • Reply 17 of 23
    I don't follow, murbot. :confused: Every CRT I've ever used that was using 1280x1024 made the picture look distorted. Relative to the more common 4:3 ratios such as 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x960, and 1600x1200, that one resolution of 1280x1024 made the graphics appear shorter vertically. This was especially noticeable in text and page layouts. Maybe the technology has changed in the past year alone? Note that I'm not talking about LCDs.

    [ 12-08-2002: Message edited by: Brad ]</p>
  • Reply 18 of 23
    defiantdefiant Posts: 4,876member
    I run my 19" CRT in 1280*1024 because it has only there 85 Hz refresh rate. anything higher or lower has 75 Hz. makes MEOEOEWWWW to your Eyes.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    murbotmurbot Posts: 5,262member
    DUDE, I thought this was a running joke with us... unless you were hopped up on Meth that first day?


  • Reply 20 of 23
    amorphamorph Posts: 7,112member
    Guys, I really don't want to know, OK?

    OS X 10.2.2 painted in 1024x768 on a 15" Apple LCD here.
Sign In or Register to comment.