Re: What is your desktop resolution?
Spalls Hurgenson
wrote:
>Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>
>Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
>way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
>doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
>really can't disable in Vista).
1280x1024 x 32-bit color @85Hz. That's as high as my old 17" CRT can
comfortably go (it's less an issue of refresh rate than size; the
screen fonts are too small to read if I up the resolution any higher.
Yeah, I know you can change the default font size, but there's a bunch
of apps that always ignore those settings and then you're squinting
trying to make out the tiny text.)
Oddly enough, I find 85Hz quite comfortable to look at, but any higher
or lower and I get a headache. I can bear 72 or 100Hz for a while, but
60 or, erm, whatever is standard above 100Hz gives me instant pain.
I don't know why I fixated on 1280x1024; that's usually a resolution
for flat-screens (which have different screen ratios) but it works for
me. It's also the standard resolution I try to run all my games at
(largely because the monitor makes an unnerving clunk whenever it
shifts resolutions, and I try to avoid things that unnerve me if I
can).
Samurai
>Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
O-ho!
>Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
>way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
>doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
>really can't disable in Vista).
I'm on 1280x1024 (large monitor), but I don't plan to upgrade to Vista
any time soon, unless you and others feel it's really worth the change.
--
___________________________________________________________
\^\^//
,^ ( ..) Samurai Dragon -==UDIC Sig Code==-
| \ \ -==(UDIC)==- d++e+N T--Om+U146MA7'! L8u uC++
\ `^--^ \\\\\\\\//////// uF-uG++uLB+uA+nC++uR nH+nP+++
\ \ \ (2 Attentive Points) nI--nPT nS+++nT--wM-wC y+ a30
ksj ^--^ ___________________________________________________________
Paulon
addresses the awaiting newsgroup...
> Quoth Polychromic <mac...@comcast.net>:
>>Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
>>way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
>>doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
>>really can't disable in Vista).
>
> I'm on 1280x1024 (large monitor),
1600x1200 here. Works for me, but then again, those who've been here a
while may remember what my handwriting is like. :-)
> but I don't plan to upgrade to Vista
> any time soon, unless you and others feel it's really worth the change.
I'm just at the point of thinking maybe I should be upgrading to XP from
Win98, especially since I have a couple weeks of holiday coming up and
haven't reinstalled since early 2003. Anyone got any useful tips?
--
Paulon Dragon d++ e++ N T++ Om+ UEK!1!2!3!4!5!6!7!'!S!'!8!9!A!L!M!W!
-==(UDIC)==- u++ uC++ uF uG+ uLB- uA+ nC+ nR nH+ nP+ nI nPT nS++ nT+ y
The Other Codex http://www.ultimainfo.net/Codex/
Danger Will Robinson! One of your nodes is about to fall off!
Ultima VII endgame.exe file
Helgraf Dragon
> Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>
> way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
> doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
> really can't disable in Vista).
1024x768. It just feels about right to me with the size of the icons
and how much screen space they occupy and such.
--
Helgraf Dragon, NSA Dragon, Echelon Liason, Fossil, Chronicler of the
Circle of Dragons, King of Sloth, The Exodus of the *Other Side*;
Psychological torch, Mao Count : 5, Plonk Count : 5
When your home is a torus, expect curves.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
Ashikaga
> Helgraf Dragon wrote:
>>Polychromic wrote:
>>> Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>>>
>>> Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
>>> way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
>>> doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
>>> really can't disable in Vista).
>>
>>1024x768. It just feels about right to me with the size of the icons
>>and how much screen space they occupy and such.
>
> 1280 now but even after adjusting the fonts for Eudora and Agent some of
> their processes display in what is now tiny MS Sans Serif.
I also use 1024x768. Otherwise the icons and text would be too small for
my eyes. Besides, I could go up to 100MHz refresh rate with it. My eyes
are rather picky about that. Anything less than 75MHz, my eyes would
protest.
--
Ashikaga a28
JP Morris
> I also use 1024x768. Otherwise the icons and text would be too small for
> my eyes. Besides, I could go up to 100MHz refresh rate with it. My eyes
> are rather picky about that. Anything less than 75MHz, my eyes would
> protest.
100Hz, you mean. :P
I use 1024x768 myself. In Linux I have multiple desktops although I only use
them rarely.
>
--
JP Morris - aka DOUG the Eagle (Dragon) -=UDIC=- j...@it-he.org
Fun things to do with the Ultima games http://www.it-he.org
Developing a U6/U7 clone http://ire.it-he.org
d+++ e+ N+ T++ Om U1234!56!7'!S'!8!9!KA u++ uC+++ uF+++ uG---- uLB----
uA--- nC+ nR---- nH+++ nP++ nI nPT nS nT wM- wC- y a(YEAR - 1976)
JP Morris
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:14:30 +0100, JP Morris <j...@it-he.org> wrote:
>
> I'm happy to report that most of my software works in Vista including
> Multiplicity so I can seamlessly move my mouse pointer (and keyboard
> focus) to my other computer screens. Ones I've noticed don't work -
> defraggers. I'm afraid to try registry cleaners since the structure has
> changed a good bit in Vista.
Aw, go on. It'd be fun to watch it eat itself.
I recently wrote something to do a recursive delete in XP.. it got into
the root directory and consumed the test system. First we knew was when
CTRL-ALT-DEL stopped working because taskmgr was erased.
The best bit was that Windows was frantically trying to self-repair and
the amount of free disk space kept going DOWN instead of up.
Ashikaga
> JP Morris wrote:
>>Ashikaga wrote:
>>> I also use 1024x768. Otherwise the icons and text would be too small for
>>> my eyes. Besides, I could go up to 100MHz refresh rate with it. My eyes
>>> are rather picky about that. Anything less than 75MHz, my eyes would
>>> protest.
>>
>>100Hz, you mean. :P
>
Some of us can take more visual information in one second than others. ;-p
Just kidding. I stand corrected.
>>I use 1024x768 myself. In Linux I have multiple desktops although I only use
>>them rarely.
>
> I'm happy to report that most of my software works in Vista including
> Multiplicity so I can seamlessly move my mouse pointer (and keyboard
> focus) to my other computer screens. Ones I've noticed don't work -
> defraggers. I'm afraid to try registry cleaners since the structure has
> changed a good bit in Vista.
I did the Vista Upgrade Advisor thingy, and I am pretty much okay. The
only test Hank didn't pass was he still needs another 15GB of HDD space
(though I do have them! I guess the advisor means the main volume of HDD,
or maybe I mount my HDD under XP incorrectly).
--
Ashikaga a28
thehawk
> Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>
> Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
> way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
> doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
> really can't disable in Vista).
1280x800 on this system (the laptop), 1280x1024 at work and on my server
garden here, 1024x768 on the workstations (they are the ones that other
people will use if there is a need) around here, and 800x600 on the
spare laptop.
-thehawk
Saint George's Dragon
>Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
>way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
>doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
>really can't disable in Vista).
My laptop's resolution is 1024x768 also. I just cranked it to max I
guess, actually it probably shipped this way knowing me.
I would love to have a big screen but I also love having a small
laptop and my apartment is too small and I am to cheap to get a
monitor just to plug in and play games.
--
d e+ N- T- Om++ UK!1!2!3!4!56A78!9 u uC uF- uG+ uLB+ uA nC nR nH+ nP
nI+ nPT nS+ nT- y- a27, Captain in the Cinnaguard, Weirdo, Blue Bow
[B><B], stealth robot pirate ninja, Website:
http://individual.utoronto.ca/fofound
-----------
Yours Truly Saint George's Dragon
Allan Olley -==UDIC==-
-----------
"They also serve who stand and wait." John Milton.
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
>
>>I did the Vista Upgrade Advisor thingy, and I am pretty much okay. The
>>only test Hank didn't pass was he still needs another 15GB of HDD space
>>(though I do have them! I guess the advisor means the main volume of HDD,
>>or maybe I mount my HDD under XP incorrectly).
>
> doubt it would like my system since I have separate partitions for my
> System, Games (games I am playing or have yet to install), Data (program
> archives for things I use as well as archives I have yet to backup),
> Internet caches (for Firefox, Eudora and Agent), Images (full drive
> backups) and Media (movies and MP3s). Then I have duplicates of all of
> these (sort of a manual RAID 0) except the System (which is backed up in
> the Image drive).
Yikes, what is on your hard drive that you must do all these?
--
Ashikaga a28
Samurai
...
>With XP there were 6-10 features that were big improvements over W2K and
>especially over W9x. Vista has...um...eyecandy. That's it. Plus it
>still has a lot of annoyances. I don't think I'd recommend it at all but
>no doubt lots of new computers will be sold with it already installed.
More or less what I suspected. Thanks for the info, though -- assuming
security holes aren't exposed in XP immediately after MS drops support
for it, I might stick with it for a while, then.
Ashikaga
> Ashikaga wrote:
<snip>
>>Yikes, what is on your hard drive that you must do all these?
>
The Sanskrit of the Eunuchs?
> Basically I decided to partition everything up so very active programs
> wouldn't clutter up the drive and cause the need for defragging. Plus I
> like to fiddle with everything.
I tried to do that too, but I guess I just have one huge partition called
Storage which is very active. And the rest is much less frequently used.
--
Ashikaga a28
Claus Dragon
>Quoth Polychromic <mac...@comcast.net>:
>...
>>With XP there were 6-10 features that were big improvements over W2K and
>>especially over W9x. Vista has...um...eyecandy. That's it. Plus it
>>still has a lot of annoyances. I don't think I'd recommend it at all but
>>no doubt lots of new computers will be sold with it already installed.
>
>More or less what I suspected. Thanks for the info, though -- assuming
>security holes aren't exposed in XP immediately after MS drops support
>for it, I might stick with it for a while, then.
In a productive environment, you normally never find the latest
version of <whatever>, you will find the tried and tested versions.
At (soon to be former) work, we switched from win2k to win xp in late
2002/early 2003. Our servers still run Solaris 8 (and neither 10, nor
Express nor Opensolaris) and Oracle 9i.
--
Claus Dragon <clau...@mpsahotmail.com>
=(UDIC)=
d++ e++ T--
K1!2!3!456!7!S a26
"Coffee is a mocker. So, I am going to mock."
- Me, lately.
Optician Dragon
wrote:
>On Mon, 26 Jun 2006 12:14:30 +0100, JP Morris <j...@it-he.org> wrote:
>
>>Ashikaga wrote:
>>> I also use 1024x768. Otherwise the icons and text would be too small for
>>> my eyes. Besides, I could go up to 100MHz refresh rate with it. My eyes
>>> are rather picky about that. Anything less than 75MHz, my eyes would
>>> protest.
>>
>>100Hz, you mean. :P
>
>What only 100 times in 1 second? How dull.
>
>>I use 1024x768 myself. In Linux I have multiple desktops although I only use
>>them rarely.
>
>I'm happy to report that most of my software works in Vista including
>Multiplicity so I can seamlessly move my mouse pointer (and keyboard
>focus) to my other computer screens. Ones I've noticed don't work -
>defraggers. I'm afraid to try registry cleaners since the structure has
>changed a good bit in Vista.
Heh, seems Diskeeper 10 has support for Vista. I know you don't like
the Scientologists, but you don't have to actually _support_ them via
BT. I wonder if it really works.
--
Optician Dragon
-=UDIC=-
"There is no cause so right that one cannot find a fool following it."
Larry Niven
Claus Dragon
>Did you ever joke about the extremely long time it takes for Oracle to
>produce bug patches?
Luckily, I am not the database admin.
Claus Dragon
>On Tue, 27 Jun 2006 21:22:37 GMT, Optician Dragon
><dragonl...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Heh, seems Diskeeper 10 has support for Vista. I know you don't like
>>the Scientologists, but you don't have to actually _support_ them via
>>BT. I wonder if it really works.
>
>That's not surprising since MS quit using the Norton-based defragger with
>W2K and started using the Diskeeper-based one.
>
>The question is, would you let Tom Cruise manager your computer?
Only if he paid someone to do the job for him.
Great Siberian Dragon
news:akjt92l5a1pd4fcl2...@4ax.com...
> Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>
> Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
> way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
> doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
> really can't disable in Vista).
Mine is 1024x768 at home and 1280x1024 at work if I remember correctly. I
could have set larger resolution on my home computer too, but most web pages
I frequent fill the screen nicer when it's set on lower.
- GSD
Ibn al-Hazardous
> Mine is to empty my trashcan more often!
>
> Uh, I mean, mine is 1024x768 because it works well with most games that
> way. However, I've been thinking about going up to 1280x960 since Vista
> doesn't look any good below that when ClearType is enabled (which you
> really can't disable in Vista).
1280x1024 on two monitors. Some games settle on switching to fullscreen
on both screens, so I get half on each - that's kinda disturbing. But
it can't be beat for coding or doing email and firefox at the same
time. :)
'Bon!
/Ibn
pibbur
1600x1200 two monitors.
--
pibbur
Samurai
locations, and it offers a fair balance between a lot of screen
real-estate and fonts large enough for me to read. :)
Claus Dragon
>> 1280x1024 on two monitors. Some games settle on switching to fullscreen
>> on both screens, so I get half on each - that's kinda disturbing. But
>> it can't be beat for coding or doing email and firefox at the same
>> time. :)
>>
>
>1600x1200 two monitors.
Unix Environment?
pibbur
<cl...@ultima-dragons.org> wrote:
> Words to the wise, pibbur <oopsREM...@tele2capi.talsno> wrote:
>
>>> 1280x1024 on two monitors. Some games settle on switching to fullscreen
>>> on both screens, so I get half on each - that's kinda disturbing. But
>>> it can't be beat for coding or doing email and firefox at the same
>>> time. :)
>>>
>>
>> 1600x1200 two monitors.
>
> Unix Environment?
Mainly WinXp, but I can run Linux on 1 of the monitors. (4 PC's controlled
through a KVM switch).
--
pibbur
Claus Dragon
>>> 1600x1200 two monitors.
>>
>> Unix Environment?
>
>Mainly WinXp, but I can run Linux on 1 of the monitors. (4 PC's controlled
>through a KVM switch).
I would looove to work on a shiny new Ultra 45 with two screens in
1600x1200 ... just CDE, nothing else ... Eclipse on one desktop on one
screen, mail and stuff on another desktop on the same screen ... a few
shells on the other screen on one desktoip .... hmmm ...