Who uses 1280x1024?

[davidg]

I'm looking for people that run 1280x1024, to answer a question for me...

Everywhere I go, I see this resolution. Wallpaper, benchmarks, specs, games...whatever. AFAIK, all computer monitors are 4:3, which is why we have resolutions like 640x480, 800x600, etc. However, 1280x1024 is 5:4.

So, here's the question: why would a person want to run 1280x1024 on a 4:3 monitor? The image is going to be squashed, to the best of my knowledge; in other words, pixels will be flat instead of square!

What's up? This is something that's been bugging me for a while now. It's driving me crazy!

 

[DeGauss]

i've been using 1280x1024, 32bit color, (85hz) for the past 5 years now.. the images are not squashed .. hrm, maybe i've just adjusted to it?

 

[TheYetiMan]

You have adjusted to it. I ran it for a few weeks and it started making me buggy because i do a lot of photo editing and such, and i KNOW thats not what the picture looked like.

I have gone back to 1152x864.

 

[davidg]

Ah, now *there's* my resolution of choice.

Glad to see I'm not out of my head. Still wondering why it's so popular...

 

[N11]

I run 1280x1024 and it looks fine... it always has... I use various resolutions all day long and it doesn't seem any different.

 

[The_Lurker]

I used to use 1280x1024, but one day tried 1280x960 and realized hey! it's not squashed anymore, and i can't use 1280x1024 nemore. If you can, it's just you've adjusted to it.. WHy ppl use 1280x1024, i have nno idea. The Radeon's dont even support 1280x960 properly.. weird stuff

 

[wlee]

1280x1024 is a leftover criminal resolution from old CAD programs. It somehow became a "standard", but never looks right on a 4x3 aspect tube. That said, I *DO* run 1280x1024 on my 18" LCD and it looks fine. But only because it has a more "square-ish" aspect. Your best choices for hi-res on a tube are 1152x864 and 1600x1200. For whatever reason a lot of cards don't have good settings for 1280x960

 

[RaymondY]

Currently running 1280x1024 on my Planar 174 LCD monitor. It is the native resolution and looks excellent

 

[Blurry]

What are you talking about? 1280X1024 is like the best resolution since its not too small, yet when playing games it always pleases the eye.

 

[TJ69]

Never really noticed, but you're right. The image is stretched/squashed a lilttle. I've been using 1280x1024 for quite some time, and this never bothered me. Thanks for the heads up.

FYI: You can use Radeonator or Rage3D Tweaker to enable 1280 x 960 for ATI Radeon cards. Rage3D.com should have download links to both these programs.

EDIT: Desktop only appears squashed if you stretch the screen size to fit the viewable area of your monitor. If you leave extra margins on the sides vs the top/bottom, the desktop should appear normal. My monitors default adjustments maintain the 4:3 ratio, but I of course adjusted the screen size to take advantage of all the viewable area. Personally, I'd rather take advantage of all this monitor's viewable area than maintain the aspect ratio. But then again, I don't do much graphic designing...

 

[davidg]

<< What are you talking about? 1280X1024 is like the best resolution since its not too small, yet when playing games it always pleases the eye. >>



Never noticed that the characters in your games look a little stout?

 

[azkiwi]

My LCD is a 5:4 screen and I think that is typical. A better question might be where did 4:3 come from? (We all know where it's going ).

 

[ss284]

Most 17 and 18 inch LCD's are a native 1280-1024. Works perfectly fine, and the small black border's on the bottom and top arent annoying at all.

-Steve

 

[davidg]

<< A better question might be where did 4:3 come from? (We all know where it's going ). >>



Hmm. Where is it going?

 

[davidg]

<< Works perfectly fine, and the small black border's on the bottom and top arent annoying at all. >>


So when you use other modes - 4:3 modes like 1024x768 - it leaves black borders? Not with 1280x1024, right?

Anyway, as a few people have pointed out, mid-range LCDs are natively 1280x1024 - something I wasn't aware of! But it seems that isn't the full story. 12x10 is very popular, and not all that many people have LCD monitors. As this thread shows, there are at least some that find 12x10 acceptable on CRTs.

 

[Instagib]

Nothing is squashed on 19" Trinitron@1280x1024

 

[Sunner]

1280x1024 will allways be somewhat squashed on standard 4:3 monitors, if you can't see it, it's cause you're too used to it.

 

[SunnyD]

I use it, and I won't go to any lesser resolution. Only reason I don't use 1600x1200 is because my monitor only supports it at 76Hz.

And as to where 4:3 came from? That's an easy one to answer - all standard definition TV sets are 4:3 aspect ratio. After all, the monitor is just a hybridised television...

And why 4:3? Or even 5:4 (I like 5:4 better because of my arguement to follow...)? Wouldn't it be better if pixels were SQUARE rather than rectangular anyway? I mean, then a pixel is more like a phosphor dot on the screen, more photographic, etc. Why do they use an odd aspect ratio? Just so they can squeeze a few more pixels in to get a higher resolution. But anyway...

SunnyD

 

[Eug]

<< Nothing is squashed on 19" Trinitron@1280x1024 >>

Yes it is. Try 1280x960 and you'll see what the problem is.

5:4 LCD monitors would work fine though as everyone said.



<< I use it, and I won't go to any lesser resolution. Only reason I don't use 1600x1200 is because my monitor only supports it at 76Hz. >>

Try 1280x960. If that's no good then try to set up 1400x1050 if your monitor will give a reasonable refresh rate.

I still haven't figured out how to do 1400x1050 on a Rage 128 Pro under Windows NT. (1400x1050 is a fairly common laptop resolution.) I do use 1600x1200x32 with large fonts on my XP box, but 75 Hz is good enough for me.

 

[Blurry]

Perhaps its because my monitor is a bit "WIDE".

 

[Wolfsraider]

<< Perhaps its because my monitor is a bit "WIDE >>



lol a sony man, you go

 

[Blurry]

<< lol a sony man, you go >>


Yeah I know...
Anyways, who could resist such a sexy looking monitor

 

[Valhalla1]

1600x1200 is what i use.. nice 4:3

 

[Superwormy]

I actually just tried 1280x1024 and compared it to 1280x960 and 1280x960 looks HORRIBLY deformed. Circles become ovals and Squares become Rectangles.

1280x1024 is definitally the better resolution on my monitors. (NEC Multisync 70's)

 

[DragonFire]

I use 1280x1024@75hz and it looks fine on my viewsonic A90f and yes I tired the 1280x960 or whatever and they both look the same. I just have more space with 1280x1024.