what size monitor do you use?

[KALSTER]

17" CRT @ 1280 x 1024. Looking at a BenQ 21.5" 1920 x 1080 DVI for around R1300 within the next few months.

[Nuke]

26" 1920x1200 Currently.

Also considering a 30", I thougt of just buying a second T260 but when I had 2x 22" screens I didn't use 1 of them more than half the time. I sit further back from my screen than most people, so its not a problem, I can see the whole screen.

[Mykhal]

Samsung SynchMaster 932 GW 19" WideScreen at native 1440 x 900

My first LCD and am VERY impressed with the quality. My next one will probably be a T260

[Firestrm_ZA]

22 inch 1680 x 1050 monitor at home

17 inch 1920 x 1200 at work

[Prime]

2 x 22"s @ 1680x1050. More than enough space for now.

Considering an Apple 30" in the near future.

that seems an awesome idea at a first glance BUT i wouldnt recommend one of those - its too big - you need to move your head from side to side just to read the lines on the screen - i would rather get two 26" monitors at a higher res than your current 22" - and two samsung T260's will still be cheaper than the apple 30" (you can get the two T260's at around R2800 each but that apple is around R15k last i checked - it could be lower now but im sure it isnt anywhere near R6k)

i considered using a full HD 32" TV at a res of 1920x1080 as a computer monitor but when you sit close to it for computer usage its way too big - thats also a lot cheaper than an apple 30" monitor and its easy enough to do by using a DVI to HDMI converter but the size is not a good thing unless you want to start using the monitor as a pc monitor from a longer distance away ie you have to be more than a metre away from it before it starts to make sense using something that big for a computer and you still have to be around 3 metres away for it to look good as a tv anyway

also another thing that ive found with my 22" monitor at 1680x1050 - if you are using it as a tv monitor then you still need to sit a decent distance away for it to look good - if you sit at it as if it was a computer while playing back standard definition TV it looks absolutely bad - and for that you would need a far smaller monitor with a lower resolution

If you are doing serious imaging work such as professional photo editing, you'd be better with the apple display or another expensive brand as I somehow doubt those Samsung possess the correct colour characteristics.

Mods, can we please have a poll?

[naughty]

If you are doing serious imaging work such as professional photo editing, you'd be better with the apple display or another expensive brand as I somehow doubt those Samsung possess the correct colour characteristics.

well yeah - it depends on your usage - i replied according to my own usage which is a mistake since not everyone uses a monitor only for general purpose PC usage and multimedia so huge apologies for that

yep the apple would be better for pro photo editing etc - but for general purpose usage it will eventually land up being too big - so its still a matter of compromises anyway

[Stuart]

Mods, can we please have a poll?

Yes, you can. Where would you like it delivered?

[Prime]

Mods, can we please have a poll?

Yes, you can. Where would you like it delivered?

If you bend over I'll show you!

And when you manage to remove it, you can stick it at the top of this thread.

It needs to have:
>= 1980
1650
1280
1024
<=1024

I think those are the correct figures.

Thanks.

[c0d3r]

This is about the image sizes, right?

Philips 190CW @ 1440 x 900

And thus with your poll options, I won't be able to vote.

[Mykhal]

This is about the image sizes, right?

Philips 190CW @ 1440 x 900

And thus with your poll options, I won't be able to vote.

I agree! my samsung 932GW also runs at 1440 x 900!

Maybe a better idea to make the poll in ranges if referring to pixels, or the standard sizes in inches when referring to physical screen sizes! (Surely this will be more important that the actual resolution, because even an 1d10t can tun his new 30" at 1024x768!

[Prime]

This is about the image sizes, right?

Philips 190CW @ 1440 x 900

And thus with your poll options, I won't be able to vote.

Sorry, thought id got them all.

And that one too please.

[Ron2K]

I'm not adding a poll to this thread. The wide variety of resolutions in use out there makes adding one infeasible.

[justinufo]

@ home=19 inch. 1400 x 900
@ work=17 inch. 1024x768

[SykomantiS]

Ok then, how about a poll about screen size, lik Mykhal said, doesn't help you have a 30" @ 1280x1024. Should make for less options

[ADT]

Samsung SyncMaster 933 (LCD monitor, 19") 1360 X 768 @ Work
Mecer 19" Wide Screen TFT LCD Monitor 1440 x 900 @ Home

[maxxis]

2 x 22"s @ 1680x1050. More than enough space for now.

Considering an Apple 30" in the near future.

that seems an awesome idea at a first glance BUT i wouldnt recommend one of those - its too big - you need to move your head from side to side just to read the lines on the screen - i would rather get two 26" monitors at a higher res than your current 22" - and two samsung T260's will still be cheaper than the apple 30" (you can get the two T260's at around R2800 each but that apple is around R15k last i checked - it could be lower now but im sure it isnt anywhere near R6k)

i considered using a full HD 32" TV at a res of 1920x1080 as a computer monitor but when you sit close to it for computer usage its way too big - thats also a lot cheaper than an apple 30" monitor and its easy enough to do by using a DVI to HDMI converter but the size is not a good thing unless you want to start using the monitor as a pc monitor from a longer distance away ie you have to be more than a metre away from it before it starts to make sense using something that big for a computer and you still have to be around 3 metres away for it to look good as a tv anyway

also another thing that ive found with my 22" monitor at 1680x1050 - if you are using it as a tv monitor then you still need to sit a decent distance away for it to look good - if you sit at it as if it was a computer while playing back standard definition TV it looks absolutely bad - and for that you would need a far smaller monitor with a lower resolution

Having spent some time on the 30" I can truly say I found it comfortable for what I do. It is however under consideration since Im really loving the dual screen setup I have now. Productivity is excellent on it.

[Prime]

This is about the image sizes, right?

Philips 190CW @ 1440 x 900

And thus with your poll options, I won't be able to vote.

I agree! my samsung 932GW also runs at 1440 x 900!

Maybe a better idea to make the poll in ranges if referring to pixels, or the standard sizes in inches when referring to physical screen sizes! (Surely this will be more important that the actual resolution, because even an 1d10t can tun his new 30" at 1024x768!

Made the assumption that everyone runs at their max resolution.

I'd prefer to keep screen size out because of all the hd monitors. There are now 3 sizes of 17 or 19 inch: Standard, wide 16:10 and hd 16:9 :/

Ron, then how about putting up a poll with ranges of resolution for width?
<800
800-1023
1024-1279
1280-1439
1440-1649
1650-1980
>1980

[naughty]

Made the assumption that everyone runs at their max resolution.

thats still worded wrong because on an LCD screen you will lose quality if you dont run at your "NATIVE RESOLUTION" ie this is the natural resolution that the screen is designed to run at - this is not size dependent because for example you will have 22" monitors with a native res of 1680x1050 but the newer ones are capable of running at 1920x1080

if you run one of those at 1024x768 it WILL give you bad picture quality

[Prime]

Made the assumption that everyone runs at their max resolution.

thats still worded wrong because on an LCD screen you will lose quality if you dont run at your "NATIVE RESOLUTION" ie this is the natural resolution that the screen is designed to run at - this is not size dependent because for example you will have 22" monitors with a native res of 1680x1050 but the newer ones are capable of running at 1920x1080

if you run one of those at 1024x768 it WILL give you bad picture quality

This is true. Marketing ploy... people will buy the screen because it supports hd.

[Ron2K]

Sorry Prime, but it's still nearly impossible to do a poll for this topic.

If this is some consolation, I got a bit bored so decided to Google to see what were the most popular resolutions out there. One website that recorded their statistics and posted them saw almost even usage between 1024x768 and 1280x800, with 1680x1050 not too far behind in third. Linkage is here.

[naughty]

Sorry Prime, but it's still nearly impossible to do a poll for this topic.

If this is some consolation, I got a bit bored so decided to Google to see what were the most popular resolutions out there. One website that recorded their statistics and posted them saw almost even usage between 1024x768 and 1280x800, with 1680x1050 not too far behind in third. Linkage is here.

LOL - that website is wonky in 1680x1050 which is my native res

[Prime]

Sorry Prime, but it's still nearly impossible to do a poll for this topic.

If this is some consolation, I got a bit bored so decided to Google to see what were the most popular resolutions out there. One website that recorded their statistics and posted them saw almost even usage between 1024x768 and 1280x800, with 1680x1050 not too far behind in third. Linkage is here.

LOL - that website is wonky in 1680x1050 which is my native res

Lol. I think that site deserves to be failed or dug down into oblivion for the irony. a website that tells people how to scale their pages but royally cocks it up.

And then he makes astounded statements about the small percentage of people using tiny resolutions.

Businesses and educational places will still use tiny screens because they are cheap. But I still question his stats.

The steam survey would be more accurate.

But thanks Ron.

[maxxis]

That site is a good example of how much I hate liquid layouts. YUCK. Its fine at 1680x1050 but fails at their own recommendation of 1024x768.

LOL much.

[KALSTER]

From that site:

"Edit 26 August 2009 – This website has had about 56,532 visitors used 299 screen resolutions in the last 4 weeks, and here’s the breakdown of visitors by screen monitor resolution in the following chart (which unfortunately screws the 800×600 setting on this page… sorry!);"

[StarBound]

The only reason 800x600 still exist is because voodoo2 made it a legendary res. The thread name is "size monitor" so why not make it 19" or lower, 23" or lower, 26" or lower, 30" or lower and over 30"? But I cant see the data being of use or insightfull so then why not simply lower than 720, 720, 1080, higher than 1080? But thats back to resolution and has more console application than pc.