Forgot your password?

My favorite resolution for the new year:

Displaying poll results.
VGA, SVGA, or WSVGA
  1416 votes / 12%
XGA, XGA+, or WXGA
  600 votes / 5%
HD+, UXGA, or WSXGA+
  2455 votes / 22%
QWXGA, WQHD, or WQXGA
  2504 votes / 22%
Some other resolution entirely
  1437 votes / 13%
Some other *kind* of resolution entirely
  2542 votes / 23%
10954 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My favorite resolution for the new year:

Comments Filter:
  • WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:45PM (#42465719)

    I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:46PM (#42465729)

    One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

  • WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Spam (66120) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:51PM (#42465795) Homepage

    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:WUXGA (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:01PM (#42465901)

    This is the right resolution, not this stupid 1920x1080.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:12PM (#42466045)

    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:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by White Flame (1074973) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:13PM (#42466057)

    Just because quite a number of people are stuck using that doesn't make it a favorite.

  • Re:FHD? (Score:0, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:46PM (#42466567)

    The windows interface (90+% of the market you linux geeks) is highly dependent on vertical resolution. Task bar on the bottom eating ~100px, Ribbon/Tool bar eating another 100. I run 1920x1200 just to get 900 or so usable vertical pixels.

    It makes me sad to see so much of the PC display market going to a 16:9 ratio as I do 85+% of my video watching and 100% of my high quality video watching on a non-pc monitor. They basically robbed you of 11% of your useful screen to save a few bucks and some people think it's a good thing. Henry Ford was right. Consumers are stupid.

  • Re:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erice (13380) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:49PM (#42466641) Homepage

    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:Alphabet soup (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Fusselwurm (1033286) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:06PM (#42466959) Homepage

    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:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yourlord (473099) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:24PM (#42467297) Homepage

    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:Alphabet soup (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jandar (304267) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:25PM (#42467309)

    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.

  • by j741 (788258) on Friday January 04, 2013 @01:47AM (#42472315) Journal

    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:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Z00L00K (682162) on Friday January 04, 2013 @02:58AM (#42472671) Homepage

    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.

C makes it easy for you to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes that harder, but when you do, it blows away your whole leg. -- Bjarne Stroustrup

 



Forgot your password?
Working...