I haven't quite figured out why 1280x1024 is so popular. It's hardly different from 1280x960, and 960 is 4:3... I'm on 1280x1024 right now, though, since my video card screws up the display size if I change resolutions (ie, I have to resize/shape the monitor's picture) and the few games I play don't offer 1280x960.
For whatever reason, 1280x1024 was established as a popular mode long before 1280x960. I think 1280x1024 was listed in the old VESA standards back in the DOS days, but I don't remember ever seeing 1280x960 listed there. A lot of users are probably just used to 1280x1024, and although CRT's would be better off in 960 mode I don't think I've ever seen a CRT advertised that way.
I use a 1280x1024 LCD, as many people probably do nowadays. The screen itself is physically 5:4, so the pixels are still square. I imagine that's typical.
For the past ~10 years 1280x1024 has been my resolution of choice, my first PC montitor was the Sony 100SFT 15" which could display 1280x1024 @ 85hz (maybe 100mhz but I think these braincells have been overwritten with internet porn).
My next upgrade was to Iiyama which I enjoyed playing games, notably Vietcong at 2048x1600, no jaggies at resolutions no need for anti-aliasing.
I miss high resolutions like the Iiyama, I've now progressed (in a Microsoft type of way) to 1400x900 resolution for Windows and 1280x1024 for gaming. (oooh the progress)
1280x1024 is default resolution for many 17" and even 19" non widescreen tft
...And mid to high end CRT's before LCD became more affordable.
I do most of my surfing on my 1280x800 laptop
...I guess because it can come to work with me
I actually prefer 4:3 for surfing since most pages are longer than they are wider.
but 16:9 or 16:10 is nice for Office app work and of course video.
Lately when I setup a computer for older eyes I leave it the native LCD resolution so that it doesn't look so fuzzy and increase font, icon, etc. sizes to make it readable. That can make some things look a little goofy but I think it's a fair tradeoff and those folks usually don't complain since it's usually an OS "upgrade" too so it look different to them anyway.
I've actually been around the site for a couple of years, but only found the forums a few months ago...sure wish I found them at first and I would have seen the Abit settlement and sent'er in...but guess I got a reason to try a recap now. Surprisingly the Jackcon's ain't bulged yet, but everyone of the JPcon's puked brown crap on the underside of the cap.
BTW - speaking of resolutions and other old school talk... am I the only one that was perfectly happy with Windows 98SE... I still haven't seen a 2000/XP install that generally performed as snappy as the SE/ RAID 0 install on my KT7a...even with hardware today that is supposedly 4 times faster
Time to put it back together for a side by side comparo.
Sorry Dog it's not just you. I'm sure most PC users are aware the newer the OS the lower the performance, often 70-1000%+ slower. Why people use new OS, who knows, brainwashing? mind control? psychological manipulation? Sometimes it scares me when I read people in jubilation of their massively reduced performance.
Here in the office we have like 65+ computers moslty with 15" CRTs.
Only a handful of them use 1024x768 (That includes me of course. BTW, I bought my own 17" CRT to the office, b'coz, I'm really starting to hate 1024x768 on a 15" CRT).
Of those of us here in the office who use 1024x768 or higher only four have big CRTs, me with my 17" and a friend of mine with his office issued 19" CRT and four others with office issued 17" CRT's. Take note most of the big CRT's in the office were acquired AFTER I bought my own 17" CRT. :-)
The rest of those with the 1024x768 resolution are stuck with 15" CRTs the will only go 60hz at that "high" a resolution!!!!!
ALSO, I could safely say that there are at least 50 computers here still using 800x600@60hz!!
Main Driver: Intel i7 3770 | Asus P8H61-MX | MSI GTS 450 | 8GB of NO NAME DDR3 RAM (2x4GB) | 1TB SATA HDD (W.D. Blue) | ASUS DVD-RW | 22" HP Compaq LE2202x (1920x1080) | Seasonic S12II-620 PSU | Antec 300 | Windows 7 Ultimate with SP1
If I had to make a choice of going up or going down from WinXP, I would go back down to Win98SE. However, I did have blue screens with 98SE, but still tolerate them. I have Win98Lite installed on an old Dell desktop and am happy with it, but don't use it for my photos or Adobe Acrobat stuff (anything memory-intensive).
Comment