what res and freq do you gusy run?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
R

reptilej

Distinguished
May 3, 2001
301
0
18,780
i am used to a 17inch monitor with 1024 x 768 and 75hz. but now i got a sony 19 inch monitor and i don't know what i should run at. i feel like i sorta wasted my money if i still run it at 1024, do you gusy run your 19inchers at that?

repeat after me, we are all individuals!
 
I run at 1280 x 1024. As for refresh rate, check out what your monitor will support at that resolution.

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>
 
Doesn't that flicker bother you?

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>
 
i run two 17" at 2560x1024@85. i think it's something like that. the matrox card uses two monitors as one. each one alone would be the equivalent of 1280x1024@85.

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
It is not really waste money. My 19 inch TV and 27 inch TV have same resolution. The 27 inch TV is simply bigger
Click to expand...
well, tv signal doesn't change no matter what size tv you have. it will always be 720x480(ntsc) or 720x576(pal) respectively, unless you get into hdtv. where the actual area of a desktop can change depending on resolution. most people find a rez that's comfortable for them to view, both in size and real-estate

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
Oh gee.. you lucky @$$ you! 😛

Rob
Please visit <b><A HREF="http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048" target="_new">http://www.ncix.com/canada/index.cfm?affiliateid=319048</A></b>
 
Thing about TV's is u should never use em as a monitor cause they'll kill ur eyes. They cause a LOT more eyestrain than CRT's cause of the refresh and other things.

My rice car will leave your R8500 in the dust!
 
Hmm, list of lucky things Flamethrower has:

* LCD monitor
* Quadro DCC for $80
* WinXP Corporate (legally)
* free 1.2GHz Athlon

Hmmm, am I missing something? :wink:

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
who said anything about using a tv as a computer monitor? i know i didn't. i was stating as to what upec said. tv signals are constant, no matter what size tv you have. so really comparing different size tv sets to different size tv monitors really doesn't make too much sense in this context.

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
Reptilej

The biggest mistake I see people do is purchase a monitor and run it at low resolutions like 1024 x 768. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 65Mph.

The key specification to tell what the monitors optimum resolution is the horizontal scan frequency.

For example:

A monitor with a 70 - 85Khz HSF is optimized for 1024 x 768 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 92-97Khz HSF is optimized for 1280 x 1024 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 107 - 110Khz HSF is optimized for 1600 x 1200 at 85Hz
A monitor with a 121Khz HSF is optimized for 1900 x 1200

Also there is a direct correlation between HSF and price. As the HSF goes up, the resolution capability goes up and so does the price.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
 
The biggest mistake I see people do is purchase a monitor and run it at low resolutions like 1024 x 768. Kind of like buying a Ferrari and driving it at 65Mph.
Click to expand...
That's like saying the biggest mistake you see people do is buy fast processors! That's not a mistake! Some people prefer bigger text.

AMD technology + Intel technology = Intel/AMD Pentathlon IV; the <b>ULTIMATE</b> PC processor
 
yes, but you have to remember too, you can put strain on a monitor's components running it below the "recommended" rez/refresh just as well as running it above. personally i couldn't see running 1024x768 on a 17" let alone a 19". but then i'm used to viewing 1280x1024 on 17". but the main thing is whatever you're comfortable at i guess.

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
i hope ur talking about LCD...cause that res on a 17" is too small dude! I tried it on a 17" CRT, and it was plain annoying. It is true that it may put strain, but the damn 17" CRT I found won't WORK at its standard settings!! Too bad...it was a very good Graphics Series from Viewsonic...ah well, in da trash it goes...

My rice car will leave your R8500 in the dust!
 
i don't see how it's too small. text i can view fine and, well i don't go online to read any online novels, all text is at browser/OS default. guess i'm just used to it, it's never effected me. the only time it REALLY seems small is if i reformat and going from the 800x600 (or whatever win2000 installs with) to this, but after a few mins all is fine. mainly before with one monitor i ran it that high to gain real-estate in ps/premiere/ae, as i'm sure you know the slightest gain in screen area while working is sacred. now with two monitors its even that much better. i gotta say viewsonic makes some nice monitors (mine's the pf775), no probs running it like this and no distortion, woohoo!!! something that this pos mag-innovision couldn't do!

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
lol, an afterthough. i remember back in the day where i couldn't see why on earth you could possibly need more room than running a 17" at 1024@768.

[insert philosophical statement here]
 
so your saying is i run my sony g420 at 1024 i may be straining it because it is under used? i am using 1280 x 960 right at this second and it seems a bit small for me. i am going to sleep on it and if it is still too small tomorrow i am going back to 1024. what that monitor direct guy said about my monitor running at 107khz or somehitng being optimized for 1600, i can't see at that res. so in the end, does anyone think that 1024 on my sony 19" trinitron is under resolution?

repeat after me, we are all individuals!
 
AMD

My point is that if you will not be using high resolutions like 1600 x 1200 save some $ and purchase a monitor that is optimized for the maximum resolution you plan to use. BTW Windows is fully scaleable, if text is to small at high resolutions, use large fonts etc.

Jim Witkowski
Chief Hardware Engineer
Cornerstone / Monitorsdirect.com

Jim at http://www.monitorsdirect.com
 
I use 1152x864 for my Viewsonic PF790. I think the video card quality plays a part, too. When this monitor was hooked to a GF2, the text looked like crap (fuzzy) at 1280x1024, so I stuck with 1024x768. After upgrading video card to an ATi radeon 8500, text is much more clear and can do 1152 or 1280 now and it still looks good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom