My favorite resolution for the new year:
Displaying poll results.10956 total votes.
Most Votes
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on February 28th, 2024 | 8470 votes
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 6390 votes
Most Comments
- What's the highest dollar price will Bitcoin reach in 2024? Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 68 comments
- Will ByteDance be forced to divest TikTok Posted on March 20th, 2024 | 20 comments
WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)
I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?
Re: (Score:2)
It's hard to tell from the options (although this [wikipedia.org] is helpful in deciphering them), but my other favourite resolution, 1440x900 isn't there either. I guess no one is buying 16:10 monitors anymore...
Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Not many offers a 16:10 monitor, that's a problem, and even fewer offers 4:3 monitors. Monitors today seems to be dictated by TV size rather than being practical.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess no one is buying 16:10 monitors anymore.
Do you really care directly about aspect ratio and if so why?
Personally I don't really care about aspect ratio per-se, what I really care about is how many pixels of height (and to a lesser extent width but width only counts as a tiebreaker) i'm getting. The minimums I consider acceptable are 1024x768 for a laptop, 1280x1024 for a secondary desktop and 1600x1200 for a primary desktop.
The last monitor I bought (pretty recently) was a nice 1920x1200 one and if I had to buy another main monitor for a main desk
Re: (Score:3)
That 1920x1200 monitor you got is a nice 16:10 model ;)
The reason the aspect matters is that average vertical resolutions have been cut because panels are all built around HDTV resolutions these days. I also have a 1920x1200 (24") monitor and it was quite find to hard one at this size, almost all the available ones only had 1080 lines.
Re: (Score:3)
Seconded. Although I am not nerd enough, because I had no clue what my resolution denominator was. Now, when someone asks me about my desktop resolution, I'll act smug and say "WUXGA, motherfucker!". That WILL help improve my intra-office relationship.
Re: (Score:2)
I was only vaguely aware there were names for resolutions beyond XGA. I also have WUXGA (bitch!) - as a photo geek, the 1.6 aspect ratio is about as close as I can get to the 1.5 of dSLRs (and 35mm film cameras). A pity nobody makes 1920 x 1280 (1.5), though there now seem to be tablets with this resolution.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, FHD here too. It's nice to be able to watch blur-ay movies on the laptop, or hook it up with HDMI to pretty much any modern TV without changing resolutions.
Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the rest of Slashdot turned into a Javascript/HTML5 abomination I'm surprised they don't just offer a slider bar and line graph. Then again Slashdot still can't process the £ sign...
Re: (Score:3)
I actually like 4:3 monitors most of the time. Toolbars do not drown out the content on the screen at this aspect ratio. And at home, since my monitor is 1920 wide, I still get all of the resolution of a "high definition" image, along with 4:3 content filling full-frame.
I'm actually a little disappointed that my Epson Home Cinema 8350 projector doesn't do 4:3 full-frame.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?
WUXGA x2 for dual head. Nobody can get by with just one monitor anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make it large enough, most people will be happy with a single monitor. I'm a sucker for high resolutions and tend to be very wasteful with screen estate, yet just last week put one screen of my triple head setup (30" 2560x1600, flanked with 20" 1200x1600 in portrait mode on each side) into storage and rarely turn on the remaining 20" screen. 30" and WQXGA will do fine for most purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
Back in the day when 17" was big, It always fascinated me that 17" monitors was enough to run four different applications on Unix, but only one on a Windows machine. We also used to use Hummingbird eXceed to run X windows on the PC, which gave use the ability to run virtual screen sizes that would allow up to a couple of hundred full screens worth that you could pan and s
Re: (Score:2)
FHD? (Score:2)
Re:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because quite a number of people are stuck using that doesn't make it a favorite.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah. I know. My partner refuses to use 16x9. He insists on 16x10. Me. I don't like having bars when i'm watching native 16x9 media and I don't see why people insist on an extra 120 pixels. Personal preference, I suppose.
It's because they use their monitors for things other than watching movies. For some, watching movies isn't even an important use of their computer. I know, hard to understand. Some people actually like to compose documents, program, surf the web and they are actually willing to put up with little black bars on the screen when watching videos if it will make the other tasks more productive. Weird.
Re: (Score:3)
None of that is hindered by not having a 4:3 monitor.
There are these things called "windows". Perhaps you've heard of them?
Re: (Score:3)
It's not the aspect ratio (I personally prefer widescreen) but the number of pixels. The weird thing about those "windows" you mention is that you can get more of them on the screen the higher the resolution. Personally, dual 2560x1440 is nice and works fine for video :)
Re: (Score:2)
Nonsense. All my CIF-resolution videos look like tiny postage stamps on it.
Pixels are just the new GHz.
Another kind of resolution (Score:5, Insightful)
One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd prefer it if we only used the term "resolution" to express "x pixels per unit length" or "x*y pixels per unit area."
Calling screen dimensions "resolution" was a mistake. It's high time this wrong was put right! You'd do it for Randolph Scott.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer it if we only used the term "resolution" to express "x pixels per unit length" or "x*y pixels per unit area."
Calling screen dimensions "resolution" was a mistake.
In a way, you're right. Unfortunately, makers of laptops and cellphones are following your advice, and stating only the diagonal dimension of a screen in inches with no mention of pixels. Often not even the acronym is supplied, or it is buried in tiny print or a misused acronym is given (e.g. laptop makers using WUXGA to refer to FHD displays). This is clearly even worse, as I value dimensions in pixels at least as much as dimensions in inches.
At home, our laptops are 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) and 18" FHD (1
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I had no idea what most of these referred to.
It turns out the 1280x1024 CRT I've been using since 2004 is known as "SXGA".
Like I'm going to remember that.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Another kind of resolution (Score:5, Interesting)
I had no idea what most of these referred to..
Me either. As far as I'm concerned, anything that uses the high density 15pin "D" shaped connector is VGA.
Re:Another kind of resolution (Score:5, Informative)
This might be helpful. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.
Indeed. I'm not aware of any real reason to use these "WHUXGA" type of acronyms. It probably has been just dragged as a tradition. Synonyms for common resolutions like 1920x1080 being called as "full HD" are fine though.
Re:Another kind of resolution (Score:5, Funny)
One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.
Amen; I don't know what any of them mean either (half of them sound like remote provinces in China) and- more importantly- I don't care. Acronyms like that may have served a purpose 20 years ago, when there were only a few standard resolutions, but there's no point in trying to remember the number that exist nowadays [wikipedia.org]. Really, I may be a geek, but I've still got better things to do with my time than trying to memorise what WSXGA+ means. Who gives a toss?- just tell me the resolution!
:-)
Is it just me, or do the polls nowadays come across as a bit soulless and contrived, as if they've been put together by a corporate employee self-consciously trying to appeal to geeks rather than a Taco-like true geek? Take this one; it's like they got the "like to laugh at their own geekiness knowing obscure acronyms" aspect of geek culture, but it doesn't really get there because it doesn't have any depth (e.g. an "in-joke" option that a geek would get or a subtle reference that not everyone would get but those who did would be like "I see what you did there") and ultimately most geeks *don't* have an autistic interest in caring about monotonous acronyms.
Also, as others commented, they should have realised that true geeks would have spotted that they missed out the relatively common 1920x1080 resolution altogether.
Re: (Score:2)
"Amen"? Okay, how about 2400dpi (and the fine-print says 12-pixels total.)
-- Newall
"2400dpi" is not a resolution. It's a density (or, "definition" - density for print and definition for screen? who knows). A resolution describes the actual number of pixels on the device, not how dense they are. OP was quite on track and you misunderstood.
Re: (Score:2)
I understood the question as "Which one of these random acronyms do you think rolls of the tongue the nicest?"
Re: (Score:2)
WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)
Okay, I know 1920x1200 8:5 (16:10) displays "lost" once everyone was tricked into drooling over "HD picture size zomg!", but damnit, I really don't feel right buying a NEW, supposedly top-of-the-line monitor that has worse resolution than my laptop from eight or so years ago in college. Sadly, my choices are dwindling...
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is the right resolution, not this stupid 1920x1080.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)
That's all well and good if all you use your computer for is media consumption, but I use my computer to do work. My workstation has a 1920x1200 monitor. My TV is 1920x1080. I don't want to use a TV for my monitor.
Re: (Score:2)
I was in agreement with you when the affordable choices were 1280x800 or 1366x768. The way most UIs are structured 768 vertical lines is rather limiting.
At 1920x1080 though I feel I have about as much screen real-estate as I can make comfortable use of on a single display. Text and widgets are just to tiny on a monitor much smaller than 20" and beyond 23" I find I am physically turning my head to see everything or sitting so far back its all to tiny to use again. 1080 vertical lines is about the limit of
Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Informative)
2560x1440 IPS panels are available on eBay (imported from Korea) for ~$350 shipped to the US. They're awesome - enjoy :)
Re: (Score:2)
$299.90, DHL express shipped (two days after it left the seller it was at my door). It's beautiful hardware, too. Pretty bare-bones - the only input is dual-link DVI, for example - but for what I paid, it's a good deal.
It bothers me that the resolution is called "WQHD", though. Not because the acronym is weird or hard to remember, but because anything that wants to call itself "widescreen quad high definition" should have a *really* good resolution... but for some reason, 1280x720 is technically considered
Re: (Score:2)
16:10 is the closest aspect ratio to the golden ratio. I know that's geeky reason to like it, and the real reason is I just like it, not the knowledge that it's (a+b)/a = a/b = (1+sqrt(5)) / 2 , but it's another reason.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell had a laptop way back then with that res. 15 inches or so, 150ppi. Glorious...
Re: (Score:2)
So did HP. I have on my desk an old Dell Inspiron 8100 with 1600x1200 (Pentium III laptop).
Re: (Score:3)
They existed, but back in the 4:3 age, 1600x1200 was a quite common resolution.
Many older programs assume that you have at least 1280x1024, and with modern laptops being 1600x900, 1440x900 or even 1366x768, there's not enough vertical pixels.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That is very nice, but it doesn't have more screen real estate than today's 16:9 screens.
I think the OP must be talking about just vertical resolutions higher than 1080.
I think you missed the part about *12 years ago*. Would you be happy with a 12 year old cpu or 12 year old disk? Why should we be happy with screen resolution that haven't improved at all in 12 years?
Re: (Score:3)
Alphabet soup (Score:5, Informative)
Wikipedia to the rescue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard [wikipedia.org]
Re:Alphabet soup (Score:5, Insightful)
Wow. Thanks.
Seriously: This mishmash of Xs, Ws, Qs, plusses and whatnot, all appended by -GA, is highly ridiculous. Who in all the fcking world wants to learn as many acronyms as there are combinations of width, height and color depth?
Re:Alphabet soup (Score:5, Insightful)
Who in all the fcking world wants to learn as many acronyms as there are combinations of width, height and color depth?
Marketing droids love them. Instead of learning something of informational value they can confuse their prey.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed! I'll take my 2560x1440 and they can keep their confusion...
ECS Productivity Mode (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
nitpicking but the 1200 was AGA
That doesn't meant you couldn't run ECS productivity mode, though.
Why you would want to is a good question. ECS productivity mode could only display 4 colors vs 256 for the AGA equivalent.
Someday, I will get my A3000 out of storage. I hope the hard disk still spins.
QWXGA (Score:3)
WHUXGA (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping 4k monitors would become affordable this year. Everything else is just a stop-gap until we get to twice full HD for pixel perfect 2x scaling.
NHK has said they are going to ignore 3D and 4k, going directly to 8k, but it will take another 8 years. I really hope it doesn't slow down the adoption of 4k though.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems that no amount of resolution in the RGB space is able to reproduce all the colors a normal person can see. Thus no, 48 bits are not enough.
Re: (Score:2)
If you can tell the difference between #9999CCCCDDDD and #9999CCCCDDDE, I'll buy you a Coke.
EASY! The one on the right ends with a 'D' and the one on the left ends with an 'E'.
Mine is: (Score:5, Funny)
My new favorite resolution is: WXZOMGWTFBBQGX
Any larger HDTV res to reduce monitor cost (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm voting for "some other resolution entirely", because I'm hoping either QFHD (4K, 3840x2160) or UHD (8K, 7680x4320) will start being mass-manufactured on a large enough scale to drive down costs on high-resolution computer monitors. I'm earning a (-1, redundant) mod here, but it bugs me that ever since 1080p HDTVs (FHD) came out I could get 1920x1080 monitors for dirt cheap, but a second monitor to match my WUXGA (1920x1200) monitor is more expensive due to economies of scale.
Personally, I don't mind too much a 16:9 ratio, I just want more pixels on screen. So my new years' wish is that the marketers are successful at scamming the TV-buying populace into upgrading to 2x or 4x their current resolution so my next monitor upgrade will be both cheap and an upgrade...
Re: (Score:2)
The standards body gave the name Ultra HD to "4k" = 3840x2180. So sorry, but UHD != 7680x4320 (pity!) . . .
I agree that the question should have been phrased in pixel counts.
Well, that's what I get for trusting [wikipedia.org] the wiki [wikipedia.org]. As someone else mentioned already, these acronyms are unintelligible and meaningless anyhow, so pixel count FTW for sure.
I'd like 7680 x 4320 - it would let me view my D800's images at 100% with minimal scrolling (image size is 7360 x 4912). The big question is: how big would the display be? I'd be happy with anything up to about 60" diagonal.
The real question is how long will it take for software to catch up? I don't have room on my desk for a 60", 30" is much more likely for me. At 8k resolution that's going to either need intelligent scaling or really good eyesight. I'd prefer the intelligent scaling, but I've had bad experiences with making that work. Somehow telling the
It's all about the MegaPixels (Score:5, Informative)
I was confused about how these were categorized. Eventually, I came to realize the categories are essentially by size. How lame.
VGA, SVGA, WSVGA = 300kP, 468.75 kP, 600kP
XGA, XGA+, WXGA = 768kP, 972kP, 960kP
HD+, UXGA, WSXGA+ = 1406.25kP, 1875kP, ~1723kP
QWXGA, WQHD, WQXGA = 2304kP, 3600kP, 4000kP
I'm using "kP" (kiloPixel) as 1024 pixels.
It's all about the SINGLE Pixel (Score:3)
I make embedded electronics. I can communicate a lot of information to my customers with a single LED. Ok, I've actually got 8 LEDs on the product, but they're far more effective than trying to incorporate a LCD screen into the product.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on the product. I also make embedded electronic devices and LCDs have the advantage of requiring a lot less power than LEDs while being able to convey a great deal more information. The choice is more about the space needed for an LCD vs. LED and the need to be viewable under various lighting conditions.
We just had some samples of ePaper displays come through. Zero energy to maintain the display is amazing for battery powered devices.
"Financial Cliff" Resolution (Score:2)
My other *kind* of resolution, is to shoot any talking head on my monitor, who uses the term "Financial Cliff" again, and again, and again . . .
Does anyone know if there are bullet-proof monitors . . . ? Otherwise, this is going to get to be quite expensive.
A little help (Score:4, Informative)
640x480, 800x600, or (1024x576 or 1024x600)
1024x768, 1152x864, or 1280x768
1600x900, 1600x1200, or 1680x1050
2048x1152, 2560x1440, or 2560x1600
A different resolution
A poor substitute for the quirky Cowboy Neal option
Pixels, not marketing speak (Score:2)
VGA, SVGA, or WSVGA XGA, XGA+, or WXGA HD+, UXGA, or WSXGA+ QWXGA, WQHD, or WQXGA
What in the world do they mean? Why are the manufacturers so afraid to tell me the real specs (in pixels) of their monitors?
.
imo, the marketeers are intentionally trying to create confusion in the marketplace in order to sell monitors of inferior capability for inflated prices..
Why else would anyone create a bunch of acronyms that no one understands, and use those acronyms to describe the capability of monitors?
Better evolution! I expect 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, because the 3.5" screen on my current (and now obsolete) phone has a resolution of 960x640, and I expect my next ~35" desk monitor and ~70" wall-mounted monitor to have a similar number of pixels-per-inch, that puts my expectation somewhere around 9600x6400 for the desk monitor, and 19200x12800 for the wall-mounted monitor. Oh, and don't forget to improve the color-depth too; might as well put that at 64-bits per pixel while we're at it. Bring on the 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp. !
Re: (Score:2)
Have you given any thought to the video hardware that would be required to drive that display? The memory requirements are manageable, but it would take a 14ghz signal to actually draw the screen in a non-interlaced fashion @ 60hz (if I understand things correctly, and I probably don't). The memory requirements would be a bit more modest at a mere 2gb for a flat picture map. And trying to play even relatively simple 3d games would have framerates of less than 1 on even the best video hardware available to
Re: (Score:2)
Bring on the 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp. !
Yeah, we can call that one WUXQVHDGA++64®© or some other nonsense like that.
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like you are talking about the iPhone's screen, a fairly average phone screen these days that comes in at 128ppcm. The currently highest available mobile resolution is the Nexus 10, also around 120ppcm. A typical desktop PC monitor is around 36ppcm, so mobile screens are about 3.5x better.
Having said that one of the advantages of a desktop screen is that everything is bigger, so a mere 2x increase in resolution would be fine with me. Hopefully this year 4k will become affordable.
Capture resolution (Score:2)
Multi-monitor (Score:3)
Primary is FHD, secondary is SXGA. When combined with the existence of the windows task bar, it's about the same as a 3200*1024 screen. I'd love to move to something with higher vertical resolution, but it's not in the cards (credit or video) at the moment.
Hercules (Score:3)
Screen resolution is measured in PPI (Score:3)
The poll is for number of pixels on the screen, not resolution. That would have had a linear relationship to resolution if we were still using 14" CRT monitors that needed as much desk space as was available on a typical desk. These days, screens are flat, need a lot less desk space and come in many different sizes and resolutions.
Resolution is measured in Pixels per Inch.
I think that for most desktop apps on Windows and Linux, about 104 PPI is the sweet spot for a desktop monitor. If programs were more scalable, I wouldn't mind going higher.
As to screen size, a bigger desktop monitor is always better.
I am currently using a dual-screen setup at work using MS Windows, but I would have been very content with just one if MS Windows had had virtual desktops like X window managers and MacOS.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of several hundred comments, you seem to be the only person who know what the hell he's talking about.
There are geeks and their are posers.... God bless you, geek!
grouping (Score:2)
Can someone explain how these are grouped at all? I don't see any pattern at all. QSXGA is what I'd like to use but it pretty much doesn't exist. (Death to wide screen. Give me 1:1 even!)
SXGA (Score:2)
HD+ (Score:2)
my 3 screens for last couple years are LG Flatron W2061TQ HD+ 1600x900 native resolution 2ms refresh rate
and I love them :)
love the 2 ms refresh on them, even running a game on the 3 screens, turning fast I see no tearing at all
MDA (Score:2)
Get off my lawn.
My first IBM compatible, which was my 4th computer, had MDA. Later I upgraded to a Hercules Graphics Card.
Nothing beats MDA, or Hercules, for pure text beauty.
1920x1200 (Score:2)
1920x1200 in glorious 16:10, as God intended. (And 1536x2048 on my tablet in glorious 3:4, also as God intended.)
QWXGA+ (2880x1800) (Score:4, Interesting)
Got a rMBP this summer mainly for the speed. I have a wonderful 27" monitor that sits on my desk entirely unused. I can't believe how much the visual quality matters, and how much I love this extra density in terms of clarity.
Hanging Wall Cabinet for China (Score:2)
We have a lot of display china, so my resolution is to build a hanging wall cabinet that will display it well. Seems much more interesting than trying to figure out all of those crazy acronyms.
pixel density anyone? (Score:2)
I've got a dozen screens that range in size from 1.8" to 40" so there's no one resolution that's right.
DPI and aspect ratio seems like better measures.
HUXGA (Score:2)
Lots of pixels and a proper 4:3 aspect ratio.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#HUXGA_.286400.C3.974800.29 [wikipedia.org]
Whipper snappers (Score:3)
CGA [wikipedia.org] resolutions should be good enough for anyone.
Missing Option (Score:2)
347. Stop picking on the /. polls.
I know I'm going to break that one! Wait, I think I just did. Damn! That's why I make so many. ;)
WTFGA (Score:3)
Gimme numbers not this alphabetti spaghetti.
Specifically: gimme 1920x1360.
root 2:1 - nothing else adds up.
Retina Display (Score:3)
2880x1800 FTW.
Vector displays (Score:2)
Vector diplays on some old test equipment are fantastic, just like how pen plotter plots still have something special going for them.
HGC (Score:2)
3200x2048 virtual, 2560x1600 physical (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
... and 1 mm in diameter?