you use 800x600 on a 14"???
Wow... I use 640x480 on 14 & 15 ", 800x600 on 17" and 1024x768 on 19"... then again, maybe its just that my eyes are bad...
Kodiak, you are right on the money. I have a 17" and run at 800X600. I tried higher resolutions but I just can't see that small crap. If I got a 19" I would go with 1024X768 but for now I would rather see the screen then go blind.
i use 1280x960 on my 17inch monitor. i used to like 1168x864 but with anything less everything is TOO big. i like being able to have a bunch of windows cascaded on the screen and be able to work with all of them
1152x864 is best on a 17in monitor. I use this res, but on my 19in i use 1280x1024. Ppl who put their resolutions higher are just stupid and will end up with sight problems
I new someone who ran their 15in at 1152x768. Only problem was you couldn't read any icon text and the refresh rate made my head ache. He thought it was clever though :0
~ I'm not AMD biased, I just think their chips are better. ~
Years ago (in Win 3.11) I used to run 1024x768x8 (256 colours) on a 14" screen (1MB ATI VGA Wonder XL), I just increased the screen font size to make it readable. The icons were a little small, but everything else was much smoother.
Hehe that makes me think of my old ATI EGA Wonder on my 8088. It had 128k on board and would do 640*480*3 (8 colours) or 320*200*4 (16 colours) That must have been one of the first ever ATI cards. I used it mainly for AutoCAD R10 and Lemmings (anyone remember that game?).
Anyway, now I run @ 1280x1024x32 @ 85Hz on a 20" Sony Trinitron with an ATI Radeon 32 SDR.
I'm actually using a Sony GDM-FW900 23"...it maxes out at about an insane 2304x1440@80Hz. Sadly, my GeForce can't push it that far... but I do run in 1900x1200@70Hz all the time.
You are about to answer a thread that has been inactive for more than 6 months. If you still wish to proceed, please ensure that your posting is original and does not duplicate or overlap any prior responses to this thread.