P
PT
What feature of a computer system determines its possible resolutions?
monitor, video card, memory, other?
monitor, video card, memory, other?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bob M.
You have to have good hardware (monitor) first, and
then a good video card will enhance or get the most out
of a good monitor. So I would say both in combination.
You set your resolution in "Display" under Settings,
usually 1024 X 768 or 800 X 600 are popular.
then a good video card will enhance or get the most out
of a good monitor. So I would say both in combination.
You set your resolution in "Display" under Settings,
usually 1024 X 768 or 800 X 600 are popular.
M
Miss Perspicacia Tick
Bob said:You have to have good hardware (monitor) first, and
then a good video card will enhance or get the most out
of a good monitor. So I would say both in combination.
You set your resolution in "Display" under Settings,
usually 1024 X 768 or 800 X 600 are popular.
Unless you're running a crappy card with a pathetically low amount of RAM
with a 15" monitor, those aren't "popular" these days and haven't been for
years. 1200x1600@85Hz is the most common resolution these days.
B
Bob M.
To: Idiot Tick
not only does that setting NOT exist, the
second number has to be smaller than the
first unless you have a monitor as screwed up
as you are.
not only does that setting NOT exist, the
second number has to be smaller than the
first unless you have a monitor as screwed up
as you are.
B
Box134
First of all, it's all in your video card. Each video card produces a wide
range of resolutions at varying frequencies. Next, your monitor must be
capable of displaying the selected resolution at a selected frequency. For
instance, my rather ancient video card can pump out frequencies that my
much-newer monitor can't display. When I try to use that setting my monitor
complains that it's out of range and refuses to co-operate.
range of resolutions at varying frequencies. Next, your monitor must be
capable of displaying the selected resolution at a selected frequency. For
instance, my rather ancient video card can pump out frequencies that my
much-newer monitor can't display. When I try to use that setting my monitor
complains that it's out of range and refuses to co-operate.
T
Tedd
Miss Perspicacia Tick said:Unless you're running a crappy card with a pathetically low amount of RAM
with a 15" monitor, those aren't "popular" these days and haven't been for
years. 1200x1600@85Hz is the most common resolution these days.
Bwahahahahahaha, you gormless bint! That setting is non-existent! Too bad you're so demanding of others in being accurate in their statements, but it is funny to see you fü¢k up your own standards on a consistent basis!
G
gls858
Go to this link and scroll down to display resolutionMiss said:Unless you're running a crappy card with a pathetically low amount of RAM
with a 15" monitor, those aren't "popular" these days and haven't been for
years. 1200x1600@85Hz is the most common resolution these days.
It took a whole 2 minutes to find.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
gls858
S
Star Fleet Admiral Q
Actually, if you are using one of the new, flat panel wide screens or
the flat panels whose view head will rotate, 1200x1600 is a valid
option.
the flat panels whose view head will rotate, 1200x1600 is a valid
option.
K
Ken Blake
In Star Fleet Admiral Q
Leaving aside the relatively minor isse of whether it should be
called 1600x1200 or 1200x1600, the statement that it "is the most
common resolution these days" is not even close to correct.
There are certainly some who run that high a resolution, but few
people do, because few people have large-enough monitors to make
things big enough to see at 1600x1200. In my view, you need a 21"
monitor for 1600x1200.
Most people these days probably have 17" monitors, and my guess
is that 1024x768 is the most common resolution on them, although
a few may run at 1152x864 or 1280x1024. 1600x1200 on a 17"
monitor is very rare.
Personally I run my 19" at 1280x1024, and my wife's 17" at
1024x768. If I had a 21" monitor, I'd run at 1600x1200, but it
makes everything too small on my 19".
Actually, if you are using one of the new, flat panel wide screens or
the flat panels whose view head will rotate, 1200x1600 is a valid
option.
Leaving aside the relatively minor isse of whether it should be
called 1600x1200 or 1200x1600, the statement that it "is the most
common resolution these days" is not even close to correct.
There are certainly some who run that high a resolution, but few
people do, because few people have large-enough monitors to make
things big enough to see at 1600x1200. In my view, you need a 21"
monitor for 1600x1200.
Most people these days probably have 17" monitors, and my guess
is that 1024x768 is the most common resolution on them, although
a few may run at 1152x864 or 1280x1024. 1600x1200 on a 17"
monitor is very rare.
Personally I run my 19" at 1280x1024, and my wife's 17" at
1024x768. If I had a 21" monitor, I'd run at 1600x1200, but it
makes everything too small on my 19".
T
Tom
Ken Blake said:In Star Fleet Admiral Q
Leaving aside the relatively minor isse of whether it should be
called 1600x1200 or 1200x1600, the statement that it "is the most
common resolution these days" is not even close to correct.
There are certainly some who run that high a resolution, but few
people do, because few people have large-enough monitors to make
things big enough to see at 1600x1200. In my view, you need a 21"
monitor for 1600x1200.
Most people these days probably have 17" monitors, and my guess
is that 1024x768 is the most common resolution on them, although
a few may run at 1152x864 or 1280x1024. 1600x1200 on a 17"
monitor is very rare.
Personally I run my 19" at 1280x1024, and my wife's 17" at
1024x768. If I had a 21" monitor, I'd run at 1600x1200, but it
makes everything too small on my 19".
True, it is not common (though Ilove MPT getting caught on her faux pas!) I have a 19" flat monitor, and I typically use the 1152x864 setting. Anything higher than that make the fonts/icons/images/etc too small. Also, using higher resolutions uses more memory!
B
Box134
Yes, I agree with you completely. I know only one person who uses 1600 X
1200, on a laptop, and the print is so fine it's practically impossible for
me to see. However, when you're 18, your eyes are at their best. I'd have to
create a custom sized font to use that resolution. As it is, on my desktop,
I use 1280 X 960 mainly because this damned monitor can't do anything more
than 75 Hz at a higher setting.
1200, on a laptop, and the print is so fine it's practically impossible for
me to see. However, when you're 18, your eyes are at their best. I'd have to
create a custom sized font to use that resolution. As it is, on my desktop,
I use 1280 X 960 mainly because this damned monitor can't do anything more
than 75 Hz at a higher setting.
J
Jim Macklin
An LCD screen has a native resolution, each pixel is a
physical thing. Run at the native resolution.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| Yes, I agree with you completely. I know only one person
who uses 1600 X
| 1200, on a laptop, and the print is so fine it's
practically impossible for
| me to see. However, when you're 18, your eyes are at their
best. I'd have to
| create a custom sized font to use that resolution. As it
is, on my desktop,
| I use 1280 X 960 mainly because this damned monitor can't
do anything more
| than 75 Hz at a higher setting.
|
message
| | > In | >
| >
| > Leaving aside the relatively minor isse of whether it
should be
| > called 1600x1200 or 1200x1600, the statement that it "is
the most
| > common resolution these days" is not even close to
correct.
|
|
|
physical thing. Run at the native resolution.
--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
| Yes, I agree with you completely. I know only one person
who uses 1600 X
| 1200, on a laptop, and the print is so fine it's
practically impossible for
| me to see. However, when you're 18, your eyes are at their
best. I'd have to
| create a custom sized font to use that resolution. As it
is, on my desktop,
| I use 1280 X 960 mainly because this damned monitor can't
do anything more
| than 75 Hz at a higher setting.
|
message
| | > In | >
| >
| > Leaving aside the relatively minor isse of whether it
should be
| > called 1600x1200 or 1200x1600, the statement that it "is
the most
| > common resolution these days" is not even close to
correct.
|
|
|