(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

I have two 1280*1024. So effectively 2560*1024. I'm guessing I'd vote 1280*1024 then?

Yup.

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

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?

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....

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

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.

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...

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

I admit I haven't really tried to resist

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.

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?


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


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


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?

1280*1024

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...

1400x1050 @ 85Hz

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.

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)

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

I'm running 2 monitors doing 1680 x 1050 (well 1 is 1680x1050 and the other is 1050x1680).

"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..?

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..

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 )
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.

1600×1200 @ 75Hz on my Diamond Plus 93SB 19" CRT.

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.



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.



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.



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.

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

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.

I run at 1280x1024, highest my 17" LCD supports.

runing 1280X1024 on my EIZO S1910 19' LCD

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.

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".


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

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

hm.. well trying to get an interlaced res.. and i figured i could do 1920x1440P 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...