On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 09:24 +0000, Dave Ewart wrote: > -----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! I am very pleased with my monitor at 1280x1024. No squashing, no scrunching, no distortions. The *only* issue is that a 4:3 movie playing in "full screen" mode won't be full screen. There will be black bands at the top and bottom of the screen. "So what?" is my opinion on that "problem". -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B I prefer encrypted mail. I am *not* my children's friend; I am their parent.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part