What's your ideal resolution?

in Future Apple Hardware edited January 2014
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!


  • Reply 1 of 24
    gordygordy Posts: 1,004member
    1280x1024 on a 17" monitor (probably 16" viewable) is ideal for me.
  • Reply 2 of 24
    pscatespscates Posts: 5,847member
    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.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    My ideal resolution is whatever <a href="http://www.pc.ibm.com/europe/pcnews/accessories/options_op1.html"; target="_blank">this</a> has
  • Reply 4 of 24
    [quote]Originally posted by tonton:


    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?
  • Reply 5 of 24
    macaddictmacaddict Posts: 1,055member
    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...

  • Reply 6 of 24
    daverdaver Posts: 496member
    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.
  • Reply 7 of 24
    applenutapplenut Posts: 5,768member
    1280 x 960 on my 17 inch ASD

    1024 x 768 on a 15 inch display
  • Reply 8 of 24
    *l++*l++ Posts: 129member
    Perfectly happy at 1600x1024 (22") not a pixel too little, not a pixel too many.
  • Reply 9 of 24
    pookjppookjp Posts: 280member
    I hate limits. I want a TiBook with up to, like, 1600 x whatever. Then I can choose depending on my task.
  • Reply 10 of 24
    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.
  • Reply 11 of 24
    vinney57vinney57 Posts: 1,162member
    I think 1600 x 1200 is the limit over DVI/ADC at the moment, so I'll have that please.
  • Reply 12 of 24
    alcimedesalcimedes Posts: 5,486member
    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.)
  • Reply 13 of 24
    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>
  • Reply 14 of 24
    othelloothello Posts: 1,054member
    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]" />
  • Reply 15 of 24
    What about New Year's Resolutions?
  • Reply 16 of 24
    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.
  • Reply 17 of 24
    vgvg Posts: 5member
    1536 x 1024 on the TiBook's screen
  • Reply 18 of 24
    kecksykecksy Posts: 1,002member
    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>
  • Reply 19 of 24
    cliveclive Posts: 720member
    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.
  • Reply 20 of 24
    It'd be (really) cool to have 16:9 widescreens on all the pro models, and 4:3 on the consumer.

Sign In or Register to comment.