? for all 19" monitor owners......

[sean2002]

What res. do you run at ? I myself can't seem to use anything higher than 1152X864 with out having trouble reading small print

 

[Ausm]

I run 1024 X 768 because I am as blind as a two pecker billy goat

Ausm

 

[Dimitri]

I use 1152x864 because 1280x1024 looks squished to me.

 

[happie23]

Maybe my eyes will get worse, but I run at 1600x1200. I can see everything fine.

 

[microAmp]

1024 x 768

 

[sean2002]

<< I use 1152x864 because 1280x1024 looks squished to me. >>



Thats the res. I tried first, even @ 85Hz my eyes hurt after 5 minutes.

 

[nortexoid]

1280x1024

things are a little small looking, but i just can't give up the screen realestate now that i'm used to it

i tried going to 1152x864 and couldn't do it...things seemed overly big to me...

 

[rbV5]

1280x960

 

[yomega]

I run at 1600 X 1200, it took about a day to get used to it, and now I hate running at anything less.

 

[HouRman]

I use a 19" Cornerstone P1460 monitor (CRT Shadow Mask)
CL pro Geforce DDR

At 1600x1200 resolution @85hz I can barely read 7 size font on Word 2000

I feel most comfortable with 1280x1024 @100hz so that's what I use. I let bigmonitor3.0 adjust the settings for optimal viewing on 1280x1024 and I'm pleased with it. The P1460 has incredible crispness and produces less heat than my last 15" monitor.

If you compare the following monitors: Samsung 900NF, Sony G420S, and Viewsonic P95f, The P1460 runs 30-40 watts less than the others, smallest dot pitch, 2 extra years on warranty, largest veiwable area, and lightest in weight. I guess the big difference is that the others are AP CRTs that have horizontal grille lines like my dad's viewsonic.

 

[DoOLiE11]

1600x1200 at 85 here

 

[Nefrodite]

u silly ppl, running at 1280x1024 is bad, ratio is all wrong. 1600x1200 on a decent monitor is defintely workable. You go to diplay properties/settings/advanced. and change the display font size to large!! that way you can read everything and still have the desktop area of 1600x1200 to play with if you leave it small fonts your probably going to go blind for the forums you gotta change default font size, its in forum customize i think. anyways, 1600x1200 rulez!!!

 

[VTrider]

Yeah that's what I do, but my desktop is at 1280x1024 now and has been for ages - guess i'm used to it? I remember though that I think I customized the font sizes so I could read a little better. I definately did for AT forums under preferences, remember when Anand changed things a little while ago and everybody was complaining about small font size?

-Vtrider

 

[bakchoy]

I have a 19" monitor attached to my docking station. I run at 1024x768 because that's the max the laptop display can handle and I hate switching between resolutions.

 

[Villareal]

1152x864 here.

 

[andrey]

1152 x 864 @ 100Mhz

btw, you might want to make a poll to see results easier. Just an idea...

 

[eplebnista]

1024x768

 

[The Stigenator]

1280x1024x32 @ 85

 

[Compuguru]

900NF here. Running at 1600x1200@85hz. Id do more, but 85hz is my minimum frequency.

 

[Jeff H]

1024 x 768 on a Samsung 900IFT. I like that resolution as it allows me to sit back a bit from the screen, keeping the eyestrain to a minimum.

 

[prontospyder]

1280X1024

 

[cthulhu]

1024x768

 

[xWeston]

1440x1080 @75hz. I am original.

More space than 1280x1024, not eye killing like 1600x1200

 

[TwilightZone77]

1152x864@100Hz here. I used to run at 1024x768, but I switched to 1152x864. It was small at first, but not any more. I'm completely used to it; it isn't small at all. I guess I could probably get used to higher resolutions if I tried, too.

Still running 800x600 on my 17" though...

 

[Zeeliv]

1280x960. If you think 1280x1024 looks "squished", that's because it is.