Why do people use 1280x1024? (was Re: custom gdm screen resolution? [SOLVED - work around])
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 09:42 +0100, Michal R. Hoffmann wrote:
> > gdm: 800x600
> > user1: 800x600
> > user2: 1280x1024, virt 1024x768
> > user3: 1024x768
Tangential comment, I know, but ...
I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a different
aspect ratio to all the other resolutions listed.
I often see: 1600x1200 - 1280x1024 - 1152x864 - 1024x768 - 800x600
1600x1200: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
1152x864: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
1024x768: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
800x600: aspect is 4:3 (1.333... to 1)
640x480: aspect is 4:3 (1.333.... to 1)
That all makes sense, since most monitors are 4:3
However:
1280x1024: aspect is 5:4 (1.25 to 1)
If you use that resolution on a conventional monitor, your images and
icons will be 'squashed': particularly, look at some photos of faces,
and you'll see it's not right.
The correct resoltion for 1280x<something> is 1280x960.
I'm not just picking on your comment, Michal, because I see 1280x1024
written all over the place. That resolution has obviously become
engrained in the general psyche, but it's not right.
Apart from anything else, 1280x960 should work faster than 1280x1024:
less to redraw for each screen refresh!
</rant>
Dave.
- --
Dave Ewart - davee@sungate.co.uk - jabber: davee@jabber.org
All email from me is now digitally signed, key from http://www.sungate.co.uk/
Fingerprint: AEC5 9360 0A35 7F66 66E9 82E4 9E10 6769 CD28 DA92
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFBuWs/nhBnac0o2pIRAohiAKCqW//LjnOIfrq4RsEj7w8quwEIZQCgvuid
ey7M4kpdspyfvNcCRVEUczE=
=0AxI
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: