Quote: Original post by Programmer OneQuote: Original post by MaulingMonkey
5376x1152 - 1280x128
What the hell is going on here? 1280x128?
My 3rd monitor has less vertical resolution than the other two. DO THE MATH!
New Year's Resolution?
1,729
January 02, 2011 10:19 AM
My 3rd monitor has less vertical resolution than the other two. DO THE MATH!
703
January 02, 2011 11:32 AM
Quote: Original post by szecs
That's the lamest song of the album. So go get it.
I need to listen to some of their song on youtube. and i hope they were available on hypptune, i still have like 390 worth of song download available.
3,283
January 02, 2011 11:49 AM
Quote: Original post by MaulingMonkeyQuote: Original post by Programmer OneQuote: Original post by MaulingMonkey
5376x1152 - 1280x128
What the hell is going on here? 1280x128?
My 3rd monitor has less vertical resolution than the other two. DO THE MATH!
6029312?
Currently I'm using 1680x1050 and a 1600x900. Ideally I will be swapping that 1600x900 out for another 1680x1050, or a larger 16:10.
Why on earth would anyone want to buy a 16:9 monitor?
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
2,990
January 02, 2011 12:39 PM
376
January 02, 2011 03:46 PM
Becoming an Archwizard and sticking to 1152x864. :)
[size="2"]I like the Walrus best.
1,729
January 03, 2011 08:12 PM
Quote: Original post by Talroth
Why on earth would anyone want to buy a 16:9 monitor?
At the time, 2048x1152s were the highest resolution LCDs I could get my hands on before the price started taking an exponential climb. The gomtv streams I watch also happen to be 16:9 native, although that's just a happy accident.
If you take a look at the 1920x1200s, for example, they have fewer pixels, and even the cheapest one-egg lemon in the category on newegg is $239 discounted, with the runner up hitting over $300 — again, discounted.
Meanwhile, at the time, I paid $200 each. I only regret not getting more of them.
1,047
January 04, 2011 01:01 AM
1920x1200 waiting for 2560x1600 to one day come true..
If that's not the help you're after then you're going to have to explain the problem better than what you have. - joanusdmentia
My Page davepermen.net | My Music on Bandcamp and on Soundcloud
January 06, 2011 08:01 AM
Quote: Original post by Programmer OneMine too, and it strikes me as possibly the least useful configuration I could have picked. Each individual monitor isn't quite wide enough to put up two websites side-by-side, the split down the middle makes it useless for gaming, and nobody makes movies in an aspect ratio that wide...
Mine is 3840x1080.
If I could afford the mounting hardware, I would get a third display and mount all three side-by-side in *vertical* orientation. That way, I would have 3240x1920, which is almost exactly 16:10.
Tristam MacDonald. Ex-BigTech Software Engineer. Future farmer. [https://trist.am]
2,130
January 06, 2011 08:11 AM
1920 x 1200
And my eyes are killing me!
"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education"
Albert Einstein
"It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education"
Albert Einstein
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
