OT: Screen resolution popularity rankings

[Terry Pinnell]

The user at the end of this league table must have eyes like a hawk!
http://www.scantips.com/basics1c.html
(Link 'Vote', one third of way down.)

--
Terry Pinnell
Hobbyist, 1024x768, West Sussex, UK

 

[Roger Hamlett]

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:5sffc1tcl09p5ol5mjls3rkk3nct4lisbf@4ax.com...

The user at the end of this league table must have eyes like a hawk!
http://www.scantips.com/basics1c.html
(Link 'Vote', one third of way down.)
Not necessarily. It depends on the screen size. The 'pity' is that the

survey doesn't allow you to enter the screen diagonal size. I'm one of the
'3%', running 1600*1200, but my screen is 21.5" diagonal (remember too
that a 'monitor' with a 19" diagonal 'rating', will normally only have an
18" useable diagonal size). On my screen (17.25 across), 1600 points, is
92dpi. Almost identical with the old 14" nominal screen, running at
800*600. One of my friends who is into photography in a big way, runs 2140
points across, on a 42" diagonal monitor (34" across), and is only running
at just over 60DPI. He is limited by the available bandwidth of most video
cards, not his eyes...

Best Wishes

 

[Sylvain Munaut]

Roger Hamlett wrote:

"Terry Pinnell" <terrypinDELETE@THESEdial.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:5sffc1tcl09p5ol5mjls3rkk3nct4lisbf@4ax.com...

The user at the end of this league table must have eyes like a hawk!
http://www.scantips.com/basics1c.html
(Link 'Vote', one third of way down.)

Not necessarily. It depends on the screen size. The 'pity' is that the
survey doesn't allow you to enter the screen diagonal size. I'm one of the
'3%', running 1600*1200, but my screen is 21.5" diagonal (remember too
that a 'monitor' with a 19" diagonal 'rating', will normally only have an
18" useable diagonal size). On my screen (17.25 across), 1600 points, is
92dpi. Almost identical with the old 14" nominal screen, running at
800*600. One of my friends who is into photography in a big way, runs 2140
points across, on a 42" diagonal monitor (34" across), and is only running
at just over 60DPI. He is limited by the available bandwidth of most video
cards, not his eyes...

Best Wishes

Looks like a triple monitor setup, maybe a Matrox parhelia.


Sylvain

 

[keith]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:40:48 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

The user at the end of this league table must have eyes like a hawk!
http://www.scantips.com/basics1c.html
(Link 'Vote', one third of way down.)

I'm running 2560x1025 (dual 19" displays @ 1280x1024) here at home. At
work it's 3200x1200 on a 15" laptop and a 20" CRT. I like lotsa pixels. ;-)

BTW, over 50 and no glasses (readers occaisionally). When I was younger I
was 20/10R and 20/15L.

--
Keith

 

[Tom MacIntyre]

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 10:16:18 -0400, keith <krw@att.bizzzz> wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2005 11:40:48 +0100, Terry Pinnell wrote:

The user at the end of this league table must have eyes like a hawk!
http://www.scantips.com/basics1c.html
(Link 'Vote', one third of way down.)

I'm running 2560x1025 (dual 19" displays @ 1280x1024) here at home. At
work it's 3200x1200 on a 15" laptop and a 20" CRT. I like lotsa pixels. ;-)

BTW, over 50 and no glasses (readers occaisionally). When I was younger I
was 20/10R and 20/15L.

I was 20:13 both when younger, still a bit better than 20:20 now.
Sadly, my near vision is a different story. Five years ago, at an
optometrist appointment, I could read the same small print as my 9 and
6 year old children. I was using 1024X768 on a 14" monitor. I worked
in electronics repair, and rarely needed a magnifier. I'll be 49 next
month, and need 1.5 on the left eye, and 1.75 on the right, just to
read or use a computer (1024X768 on a 17" or 19" monitor).

I believe there are 3 factors involved here...

1-Natural aging
2-Getting out of the repair business (if you don't use it, you lose
it)
3-Prematurely becoming dependent on the reading glasses... YMMV

Tom