It is currently Fri Sep 19, 2014 10:50 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

What resolution is your monitor running?
640 x 480 or 800 x 600 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
1024 x 768 9%  9%  [ 8 ]
1152 x 864 or 1280 x 960 12%  12%  [ 11 ]
1600 x 1200 12%  12%  [ 11 ]
2048 x 1536 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
912 x 684 to 992 x 744 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
1280 x 720 or 1366 x 768 1%  1%  [ 1 ]
1920 x 1080 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
1280 x 800 or 1440 x 900 4%  4%  [ 4 ]
1680 x 1050 9%  9%  [ 8 ]
1920 x 1200 or 2560 x 1600 5%  5%  [ 5 ]
1280 x 1024 40%  40%  [ 36 ]
some other weird nonstandard 4:3 or 5:4 resolution 2%  2%  [ 2 ]
some other widescreen resolution 2%  2%  [ 2 ]
a resolution of aspect ratio taller than 5:4 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 91
Author Message
 Post subject: What resolution are you running at?
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2057
Location: Toronto
(If you're using multiple monitors with different resolutions, what are you running on your primary monitor?)

I'm running 960x720x78hz. My monitor's actually supposed to be able to do 1024x768x85hz, but it's broken and won't work right at near full bandwith. 800 x 600 is torture.

Only 15 poll options allowed? Grrrrhrhrhr


Last edited by mathias on Sat May 20, 2006 8:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
I have two 1280*1024. So effectively 2560*1024. I'm guessing I'd vote 1280*1024 then?

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 8:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2057
Location: Toronto
Yup.

Oops, I forgot all about the possibility of someone having a monitor rotated 90 degrees.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:42 pm
Posts: 606
Location: UK
1440x1080 (4:3). pretty clear, unlike 1600x1200 (its a 17" CRT) and allows a higher refresh rate too. and 1080p should play 1:1, just losing the WS parts. and 1280x960 seems a tad small now..
oh to go for a WS LCD which loses me a little screen realestate, but gives me back desk real estate, or a 2nd hand uber-high res flat CRT for cheap(er) for my next monitor..
hm i think it may have to be an LCD else i'll be stuck on CRTs and 4:3 forever..

Does anyone make those thin CRTs? like samsung or someone are doing with TVs now?

_________________
i3-530, Gigabyte H55M-D2H, CM hyper212+ | Sempron64 3000+, Biostar Tforce 6100, AC Freezer 7, picopsu. 0 fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat May 20, 2006 11:25 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
Posts: 1069
Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe
I got 2 19inch CRTs @ 1600x1200x32x72Hz progressive, the highest they go unfortunately.

I like my pixels smaaaall and my desktop biiiiiig, just wish I could affort a 30" TFT....

_________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:21 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 02, 2004 2:27 am
Posts: 774
Location: Quebec, Canada
I'm using the native resolution of my 19" LCD monitor 99.9% of the time, which is 1280x1024 (or 1024x1280 in pivot mode)

_________________
Zalman LQ1000 liquid cooled case + dampening material + PVC tubes + MCP350 with EK top (acetal) and decoupling kit + Nexus 120mm + Xigmatek 200mm + HDD cage removed | Asus Maximus III Formula (ROG) | Intel Core I7 870 + EK Supreme (acetal) | 8GB Kingston | AMD Radeon HD 5850 1GB O/C + EK full cover block (acetal) | Western Digital Black 1TB + NoVibes III + Nexus 120mm (5V) | Seasonic X-850


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 5:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:50 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
klankymen wrote:
I got 2 19inch CRTs @ 1600x1200x32x72Hz progressive, the highest they go unfortunately.


If your video card supports interlacing (any Ati, any Matrox, and most nVidia), then you can go up to 2048x1536. I'm using a 21" Trinitron at 2048x1536 at 85hz interlaced--virtually no flicker. The monitor thinks it's receiving a 1024x768@85 signal.

Actually, both my video card and the Trinitron monitor can support 2048x1536 non-interlaced, but I found that small text wasn't quite as sharp as with an interlaced mode.

_________________
Isaac Kuo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:07 am 
Offline
SPCR Reviewer

Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 11:23 am
Posts: 1845
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
1600x1200x75 (primary monitor; 21" Sun-branded Trinitron CRT)
1280x1024 (secondary; 19" Samsung LCD that somehow manages to be the same size as my 21" primary monitor. Colour reproduction is less than optimal, and everything is too bright.)

For my HTPC, I'm running a DVI->HDMI adapter, so all of my resolutions must be in HD timings. I'm currently running 1280x720 (720P) timings with the edges cropped off to account for overscan. Can't remember the exact numbers right now...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Sep 16, 2005 11:06 pm
Posts: 224
Location: Switzerland
2 * 1024x768 @75Hz Good ol' 17" CRT's, but since they:
-both display colours far from perfectly, and what's more with a different tone
-use a sick amount of power
-take up space
-look ugly
-aren't practical for gaming (although I only do that about 0.5% of the time)
-the one makes an annoying high pitched whine from time to time

I feel justified to get myself a 1680x1050 LCD this summer 8)

I admit I haven't really tried to resist :lol:

_________________
My custom wood case.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:42 am 
Offline
*Lifetime Patron*

Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:39 am
Posts: 288
Im running 1280x768 26" (HDTV) Which i sit about 3 1/2 feet from but it is a little annoying sometimes at such a low res.

Also a 17" LCD at 1280x1024 Mostly just used for iTunes, but also Photoshop tools when i do some Image work.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2057
Location: Toronto
mb2 wrote:
1440x1080 (4:3).

How did you get it to run at that, was it an option out of the box, did you edit some obscure cofig files, was there an option to add custom resolutions in bundled or 3rd party utilities or are you also not using windows?

mb2 wrote:
Does anyone make those thin CRTs? like samsung or someone are doing with TVs now?

What? Thin CRT's, when did that happen? How thin are they?

klankymen wrote:
I got 2 19inch CRTs @ 1600x1200x32x72Hz progressive, the highest they go unfortunately.

Only 72 hz? I hear 19 inch screens need something like 85 hz.

Slaugh wrote:
I'm using the native resolution of my 19" LCD monitor 99.9% of the time, which is 1280x1024 (or 1024x1280 in pivot mode)

What monitor is it? How well does pivot mode work?


I never heard of interlacing on computer screens, what are the disadvantages, not good for games and video?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri May 19, 2006 1:04 am
Posts: 31
Location: Surrey, UK
1280*1024

_________________
Core 2 Duo E8400 @ 4.1Ghz * 600W Jeantech
8800GTX @ 630/2000 * P5B Deluxe * Antec Solo
19" VX912 * 2GB Geil PC2-6400 Ultra * XP Pro


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 12:42 pm 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2005 3:31 pm
Posts: 1069
Location: Munich, Bavaria, Europe
IsaacKuo wrote:
If your video card supports interlacing (any Ati, any Matrox, and most nVidia), then you can go up to 2048x1536. I'm using a 21" Trinitron at 2048x1536 at 85hz interlaced--virtually no flicker. The monitor thinks it's receiving a 1024x768@85 signal.

Actually, both my video card and the Trinitron monitor can support 2048x1536 non-interlaced, but I found that small text wasn't quite as sharp as with an interlaced mode.


Yeah, I know it will go higher with interlaced, that's why I wrote in that it's progressive. For some reason I'm reluctant to go interlaced, either that or I'm too lazy to custom make the resolution, I can't remember what it is...

_________________
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -Benjamin Franklin


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:03 am
Posts: 1132
Location: Europe
1400x1050 @ 85Hz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What resolution are you running at?
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 1:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jan 15, 2006 12:52 am
Posts: 112
Location: Madison, WI
mathias wrote:
(If you're using multiple monitors with different resolutions, what are you running on your primary monitor?)

I'm running 960x720x78hz. My monitor's actually supposed to be able to do 1024x768x85hz, but it's broken and won't work right at near full bandwith. 800 x 600 is torture.

Only 15 poll options allowed? Grrrrhrhrhr


Not trying to insult your intelligence, but, have you tried a different cable? I once had a monitor/resolution/video card issue that went away when I bought a new (higher bandwidth) cable from Radio Shack.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 2:38 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 2:56 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Barcelona
I am surprised that (so far) only me and another user have 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. A big screen was the next important step on my computer after making it not that noisy. I strongly suggest it to everyone that runs various programs at once.

I personally have 1920x1600 and 1024x768 together (photo)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 4:11 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 8:22 pm
Posts: 2465
Location: London
mai9 wrote:
I am surprised that (so far) only me and another user have 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. A big screen was the next important step on my computer after making it not that noisy. I strongly suggest it to everyone that runs various programs at once.


As I mentioned, I have 2560*1024, for a simple reason that two 17" LCDs are cheaper than a single 20" widescreen and give me more pixels to work with.

I personally believe that dual-monitors are the new dual-CPUs from mid-1990s. "One monitor per person is not enough."

Computers have now passed the point where even a low-end machine is powerful enough for most things users can throw at it. Time to spend money at the peripherals, after all we don't look at CPUs or click RAM very often. A better mouse is next in line for me :)

_________________
Thinkpad X200 – aging fan, T60p – Core Duo whine :(
Nothing endures but change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 4:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 7:54 pm
Posts: 301
Location: Oz
I'm running 2 monitors doing 1680 x 1050 (well 1 is 1680x1050 and the other is 1050x1680).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 9:07 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:42 pm
Posts: 606
Location: UK
"I am surprised that (so far) only me and another user have 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. A big screen was the next important step on my computer after making it not that noisy."
i think its pretty high on most peoples lists.. just u look at the cost of my pc, and then the cost of a screen like that.. plus factor in that i got this one for £12 (~$20?) on ebay (it was local), as everyone wants their desk space back and are getting LCDs.

as for dual screens, personally i find the way XP handles them as annoying. and meaning u can only display an app properly in one.

as for my res, i just used the standard nVidia tools, from advanced in the 'settings' of display manager.
i would have used 1600x1200, but on a 17" CRT it looks a bit too small and it only works at like 60Hz or something horrible IIRC.

re:cables
is there any way to find out how good/bad ur cable is?.. (also remember many lower monitors have cables wired in?)

interlaced looks better than progressive for small text? wah? how the hell does that work..
what requirements does ur monitor have to have to get stupidhighXstupidhigh I ?
and does it actually look like progressive in terms of the space u get, and clarity..?
and how do u find out if ur non-ati card supports it?

and as for slim CRTs;
http://www.samsung.com/Products/TV/slim ... /index.asp
.. it says its only 1/3 thinner, but i thought it was a lot more than that.. some reason i thought they had like 32" WS CRTs that were 8" thick..

and does this thread set a president that SPCR should support resolutions higher than 1280x1024 a lot better..?

_________________
i3-530, Gigabyte H55M-D2H, CM hyper212+ | Sempron64 3000+, Biostar Tforce 6100, AC Freezer 7, picopsu. 0 fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun May 21, 2006 10:13 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 16, 2004 8:49 am
Posts: 3011
Location: Suomi Finland Perkele
One 1280x1024 TFT, used to have two of wich one was such a piece of sheit its not even worth selling since the price i would get for it wouldnt even cover the gas it would take to drive it to the post office.. :lol:

And yes i agree windows handes two monitors pretty badly, i would have liked to at least be able to extend the taskbar to cover both mntors.. Or have the taskbar show on the secondary monitor(dont ask :lol: )
There was also somehting else i thought was annoying but i can´t remember what it was.. Oh yeah, id like to be able to disable the second monitor with a click, since i didn´t use it every day i found it disturing that i lost my cursor on the wrong monitor wich wasn´t even on... Maybe its just me though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:16 am
Posts: 217
Location: Australia
1600×1200 @ 75Hz on my Diamond Plus 93SB 19" CRT.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 5:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jan 23, 2004 7:50 am
Posts: 1705
Location: Baton Rouge, Louisiana
mb2 wrote:
interlaced looks better than progressive for small text? wah? how the hell does that work..


It's simply a matter of the particular limitations of my particular hardware. With most monitors and resolutions, the main limitation on resolution is the physical size of the electron beam "dot". However, with Trinitrons this dot size is really small (it has to be due to the way Trinitrons work). The resolution limit in this case is somewhere else--the bandwidth limit of either the video card or the monitor's electronics. I'm not sure which.

You can think of the bandwidth limit as an indication of how quickly the electron beam can turn on/off. Below this limit, the beam can turn on/off quickly for sharp edges. Above this limit, the beam can't turn on/off quickly enough so you end up with shades of grey instead of black/white pixels. Near this limit, the edges between the pixels are blurred.

With interlacing, the speed at which the beam travels across the screen is halved. I find that 2048x1536@85i interlaced is very sharp. I find that 2048x1536@60 progressive is a bit blurry (and also, at 60hz the screen is flickery).

It took me a lot of tweaking to figure out the best compromize between resolution and flicker. In my case, an interlaced resolution was the best.

Quote:
what requirements does ur monitor have to have to get stupidhighXstupidhigh I ? and does it actually look like progressive in terms of the space u get, and clarity..?


The monitor must be a CRT, and it must be capable of handling halfXhalf the desired interlaced resolution. For example, one of my monitors can handle at best 1024x768@60 progressive. This means it can also handle 2048x1536@60i interlaced. The result is very flickery, and not really useful. The size of the electron beam dot is so large that the resulting display isn't really any sharper or more detailed.

You need to have a refresh rate of at least 72hz before interlace flicker is reduced to usable levels. At 85hz, interlace flicker is virtually eliminated except for pathological cases (e.g. images with alternating black/white horizontal lines). I find that an 85hz interlaced display flickers much less than a 60hz progressive display.

Quote:
and how do u find out if ur non-ati card supports it?


If you're using Windows, you can try using "Powerstrip" to customize an interlaced resolution. If it works...then great! However, I find that ludicrously high resolutions are not desirable in Windows. In Windows, I prefer a resolution of 1024x768 up to 1280x960, depending on how large the monitor is. Windows and Windows applications tend to be a pain to customize with large fonts (if at all). Theoretically, all font sizes are indexed to the dpi setting so all you need to do is increase the dpi. In practice, large fonts don't work very well in Windows.

Quote:
and does this thread set a president that SPCR should support resolutions higher than 1280x1024 a lot better..?


I may be using 2048x1536, but I use Opera's zoom capability to view web pages at 200%. In effect, I'm web browsing at 1024x768, except with really smooth readable fonts.

_________________
Isaac Kuo


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: What resolution are you running at?
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 2:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2004 3:58 pm
Posts: 2057
Location: Toronto
DonQ wrote:
Not trying to insult your intelligence, but, have you tried a different cable?

No, I don't have any experience with soldering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 6:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Dec 13, 2005 1:08 pm
Posts: 1407
Location: Michigan
No one has the standard HD 16:9 widescreen at 1920 x 1080!

I guess all the computer LCDs are 16:10 ratio 1920 x 1200.

I used to run my old 21" Trinitron at 1400x1050 which is nice 4:3 resolution. Most cards support it but for some reason the drivers do not enable it by default. It fills in the gap between 1280x960 (which seldom works right) and 1600x1200. 1440x1080 might be better for HD support, but I haven't seen much CRT support for that resolution. Its highest resolution was specified to be the odd 1800x1440, but I noticed that more recent drivers let me run it at the more proper 1856x1392. I also often ran the Trinitron at 1792x1344@85Hz--though at nearly 200MHz pixel clock that was probably pushing the video circuity a little too much. That and/or moving it in the car too much led to its untimely death. :(

My new cheap 19" Samsung CRT has a fine dot pitch, but it tries very hard not to display a real black, and it doesn't have the bandwidth to run even 1600x1200@85Hz. I have to settle for 75Hz.

I am thinking of a CRT projector or a 19" or 20" widescreen LCD as my next display. The former sounds like the most fun, but a lot of work too.

It would be nice if drivers would automatically disable all non-square pixel resolutions. I will never buy a 5:4 ratio display--yuck. Video is all going widescreen, so lets make LCD that are slightly taller than normal! I am okay with 16:10, though. I imagine MS wants some room for the WMP controls. Otherwise, there should just be 4:3 and 16:9.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 4:02 pm
Posts: 1608
Location: United States
I run at 1280x1024, highest my 17" LCD supports.

_________________
Corsair Obsidian 650D | Seasonic X-650 | Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD5 | Phenom II X4 955 | Noctua NH-D14 | 2x4GB Corsair DDR3-1600 | ASUS HD6950 DirectCU II 2GB | OCZ Vertex 2 120GB | 2x WD Green 1TB


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 8:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 3:06 am
Posts: 96
Location: the Golan Heights,israel
runing 1280X1024 on my EIZO S1910 19' LCD :lol:

_________________
OPTERON 170@ 2.8 GHZ - SCYTHE NINJA - DFI SLI DR - G.SKILL 2 GB HZ - XFX 7950 GT XXX EDITION - 2X SAMSUNG 400GB S-ATA RAID 0 - SEASONIC S12 430W - ANTEC P-182 se - dell 2707WFP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon May 22, 2006 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2005 11:18 pm
Posts: 77
Location: Rochester, NY, USA
1152x864 on a 22inch crt. Was used to running 800x600 on a 15inch for years, so I found the resolution that most closely matched font size with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 6:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 02, 2004 2:56 pm
Posts: 102
Location: Barcelona
qviri wrote:
mai9 wrote:
I am surprised that (so far) only me and another user have 1920x1200 or 2560x1600. A big screen was the next important step on my computer after making it not that noisy. I strongly suggest it to everyone that runs various programs at once.


As I mentioned, I have 2560*1024, for a simple reason that two 17" LCDs are cheaper than a single 20" widescreen and give me more pixels to work with.

I chose that 1920x1600 screen because my previous two screens were too small for me. I had a 17" CRT and 15" LCD. I wanted to buy a 20" first, but on forums I found many users that regret their purchase in favor of the 24".

qviri wrote:
Computers have now passed the point where even a low-end machine is powerful enough for most things users can throw at it. Time to spend money at the peripherals, after all we don't look at CPUs or click RAM very often. A better mouse is next in line for me :)

that's what I thought when I had a AMD Athlon XP 2800, but I now bought a AMD Athlon 64 X2 4200 and it was a huge step, it was at least for me, maybe because it wasn't entirely expected :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 8:22 am 
Offline
Patron of SPCR

Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2003 10:58 am
Posts: 216
Location: Sheffield, UK
Just got a new Eizo 24" screen at 1920x1200, looks great, occationally I kick in the old 1680x1050 dell as well if I need a silly amount of work space :oops:

_________________
AM2 6000+, Ultra-120, Antec Solo, Seasonic S12-650 80+, Asus crosshair, Corsair 2Gb, 2xGF7950GTX passive, WD raptor 74Gb, 2xSP2504C, external 500Gb WD, Noctua fans
AM2 4600+ HE, Scythe Samurai Z b, Antec fusion, Seasonic S12-330, Asus M2A-VM HDMI, 2Gb, WD2500KS, Nexus fans, blu-ray


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue May 23, 2006 10:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 2:42 pm
Posts: 606
Location: UK
hm.. well trying to get an interlaced res.. and i figured i could do 1920x1440P :D wooh, albeit 60Hz.. so, not so desirable. photos look great thou..
and i *think* i've managed to get 1920x1440i @100Hz.. but i'm not sure?.. and i dont think i can get 2048x1532i
any more info on how to set up intelaced res's with powerstrip?.. i can get a res and then tick the 'interlaced' button, but then i have the same res w/ 1/2 the resfresh rate.. not 4x the res with the same refresh rate.. and i cant select a higher res first else the montor shuts off cuz it cant take it (ie, progressively) before i have the option to select interlaced..?

and yes, opera is very nice for enlarging web pages.. and it would be very nice to have fonts that increase size with res..
i'd really need to sort out a few issues w/ opera first though (ie, add features from FF extensions that i now can't live without.. adblock being #1.. which i think u can implement in some (awkward) way, but theres quite a few others..).
and the only text i have trouble reading @ ~1m is the desktop icons...

_________________
i3-530, Gigabyte H55M-D2H, CM hyper212+ | Sempron64 3000+, Biostar Tforce 6100, AC Freezer 7, picopsu. 0 fans.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 34 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group