Monitor screen res?

[Raffman]

After working through a few images to upload onto the gallery, I found that with the minimum image resolution of 800x600 it was hard see the whole images with out have to scroll a little, in the past I have been used to around 640 pixels on the longest length. I checked out the screen res I was running at and this is set to 1024x768. If I adjust the setting up a notch to 1152x864 I can see the images a whole load better although I think I should rework them again for this viewing size.

Just wondering what screen resolution most people are using, it seems unusual to view web images so large at my old setting so perhaps most are viewing them smaller?

Many thanks
Raff

[glsammy]

I use 1280x1024 with my 17" screen. No problem viewing the images full size. I'm going to get a new screen shortly, I can't decide whether to get a wide screen or a standard. Problems problems!

[Raffman]

hmmm I think one of my problems could be I'm still using a small old CRT that came with my PC years ago, the viewable screen is about 15.5.

Am I stuck in the past with my dinky CRT

Raff

[StuartDH]

I've just had a look at the site stats for this month and it shows that 8.7% of users are on 800x600 (down form about 14% over the last 12 months), so they'd need to use horizontal scroll a bit. Just over 50% have 1024x768 and everyone else has larger than.

If you're looking for a larger screen, I've just bought a new iiyama Prolite E1900S and it's awesome. It didn't top the recent group test of 19" monitors in PCPro magazine because it didn't have a swivel base etc , but for image quality it's outstanding and that's all the matters to me

Stu

[Raffman]

Just switched to 1280x1024 and its perfect for images but the text is tiny (even on the largest setting). Oh well cant have it all and I think a new monitor is out of reach for a while. I'll keep an note of your monitor though Stu...cheers

Raff

[lewisa]

If you are anywhere near Lancashire and have the means to collect you can have a 21" monitor for free, Ive got them coming out of my ears, you cant give em away these days.

Im currently using two monitors driven by a 6800 Ultra, the main display is a compaq P1220 CRT running at 1600x1200 for everyday use and 2048 x 1536 for gaming and programming, and the second is an LG 26" LCD TV running in RGB mode at 1600 x 1200, although only 1024x768 can be displayed at any one time on the LG.

It will be a while before I move away from CRT for my main display, TFTs dont have the quality a nerd like me needs for fast paced high res gaming, but once they catch up I'll be switching, and Iiyama are a great choice, if not the best.

[jonny.go.go]

Just something to bear in mind. A decent quality CRT will usually give better colour representation than most flat screen monitors. If space is not at a premium a decent 21" CRT should give you resolutions up to 1600 x 1200 but text may be difficult to read at these higher resolutions. Please make sure your graphics card can handle the extra resolution and colour depth.

I run a Samsung Syncmaster 20" 204b at 1280 x 960 for my browsing.


Jonny

[Raffman]

Thanks for the kind offer Lewisa but sadly I'm in North Devon!!!

I have heard before that people still prefer the quality and coloyrs of CRTs, you'd of thought by now things would have caught up. Cant believe the prices of some new monitors.

Raff

[lewisa]

Devon, hmm, youd spend more on the fuel than it would cost to buy it new

The monitor market at the moment is fascinating, because the best performing CRT products cost less than a third of the equivalent sized popular TFT products the general public want.

Its probably the best example of style over substance consumerism there has ever been.

There have been examples in the past where inferior products win a format war (a la betamax vs VHS), but not when there is such a huge difference in the price of equivelent goods.

In a Japanese-esque space-driven society the TFT thing makes sense, but not in the UK, I just cant get my head round it