Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

What is the resolution of the screen on the primary system you use to access SoylentNews?

Displaying poll results.
1024x768
  1% 4 votes
1280x720
  2% 8 votes
1600x1200
  2% 7 votes
1920x1080
  40% 116 votes
2560x1440
  11% 33 votes
3840x2160
  16% 48 votes
Other, specify in comments
  21% 62 votes
I don't have a computer you insensitive clod!
  1% 5 votes
283 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This discussion has been archived.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.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, @01:58PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, @01:58PM (#1117926)

    The Trash

    • (Score: 1) by isocelated on Monday March 01, @08:52PM

      by isocelated (7338) on Monday March 01, @08:52PM (#1118607)

      Same.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @01:59AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @01:59AM (#1119242)

      My laptop is this resolution. I had never seen it until just now when I ran xrandr to check. Seems pretty strange, so I'm surprised to find more people at this resolution.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @02:23AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @02:23AM (#1119250)

        The industry has been spewing out cheap 1366x768 panels for over a decade. 1920x1080 only recently gained ground in budget laptops. 1366x768 is still very common in 11.6 inch laptops.

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @06:41AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @06:41AM (#1119736)
        It's actually the most common resolution for entry-level and mid-range laptops, which is why I'm a bit surprised that it isn't an option listed.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @06:51AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @06:51AM (#1119738)

      The vast majority of laptops come with this horrid 1366x768 size. I have had to pay premium (2x to 3x and up) for full HD. 4K is way beyond my budget where I live. You can buy a good used car for the price difference!
      I find that with a lot of software, even a simple image viewer (nevermind GiMP) - the bottom few optins or the apply button vanish "below the fold". So it takes 5x longer to DO anything. It is a wonder the makers of these 1366x768 screens have not faced one of: i) a noose, ii) a guillotine, iii) a firing squad, or iv) at least a class-action lawsuit.
      Ah, now THAT was therapeutic to let if out!

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @01:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @01:03PM (#1121027)
        Quit your complaining and plug an external screen, keyboard, and mouse like most normal people have been doing for a couple of decades already?
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, @03:19PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, @03:19PM (#1127127)

        It’s not a monitor problem, it’s a dopey programmer problem - they need to try their software on machines that people have

  • (Score: 2) by looorg on Saturday February 27, @03:03PM (1 child)

    by looorg (578) on Saturday February 27, @03:03PM (#1117937)

    When I look at the poll the title still says "Which mythological world would you rather ...", which was the last poll.

    Anyway. 1920x1080 for the most parts. I found that if I run things larger it just ment that I had to make things larger, to be able to read it, so I didn't really get that much more screen. Also it's a matter of available desk space.

    • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday March 14, @05:51PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday March 14, @05:51PM (#1124099)

      I have had several 4K screens over the past 5 years or so, but they always seem somewhat technically challenged when running at 4K either sensitive to cable issues, or graphics driving issues or other things that are just working 4x as hard to get what is a barely marginally noticeable improvement in picture quality. I run most of my 4K screens at 1920x1080 most of the time. Same for video surveillance cameras - sure, they _can_ stream 4K but is it really any more useful than 1080p? 99% of the time, no - although I do wish that my 4K cameras would allow me to digital-zoom select the 1080p frame that they stream - that would be useful.

      --
      My karma ran over your dogma.
  • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Saturday February 27, @04:18PM (5 children)

    by Subsentient (1111) on Saturday February 27, @04:18PM (#1117962) Homepage Journal

    1280x800 on my 2011 ThinkPad T410.
    I keep upgrading the thing. It's now got 8GB of RAM, a 120GB SSD, and a 1TB spinning rust where the optical drive used to be. Sadly the CPU is the one thing I can't really upgrade much further. There's one slightly faster core i7 I could stick in it, but the performance gain would be minimal. I'll need a newer machine soon, which is a pity, because I love this machine.

    --
    “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Saturday February 27, @09:39PM (3 children)

      by MostCynical (2589) on Saturday February 27, @09:39PM (#1118035)

      T530 16GB i7-3720QM CPU @ 2.60GHz × 8
      128Gb SSD 500Gb spinning rust
      "only" 1366 x 768

      damaged pixels on two patches of screen - can't get it repaired for less than the cost of a replacement laptop. :-(

      repairing it is a bit beyond my skill set.. eventually it will 'retire' to run as a desktop, I suppose.

      --
      Books are a poor substitute for female companionship, but they are easier to find. P Rothfuss “The Wise Man's Fear"
      • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Monday March 01, @02:41AM (2 children)

        by Subsentient (1111) on Monday March 01, @02:41AM (#1118361) Homepage Journal

        I imagine it's something you probably could repair yourself if you tried hard enough. The real question will be the cost of the replacement screen.

        --
        “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, @08:48PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, @08:48PM (#1118604)

          installed a 1920x1200 active matrix/tft flat panel purchased off ebay for $50 made for generic laptop standard screens.

          Took me a few hours; never did it before. The hardest part was overcoming the fear of breaking it.

          If your screen has an antenna or something baked around the sides, then maybe that is going to break because for $50 and your own skill, it is possible your install will be harder than mine.

          My laptop is something I bought in 2006, and the 1920x1200 resolution is pretty astounding on it. The laptop does get a bit warmer during regular use -- it is driving a resolution higher that it was natively doing before -- but it is not like I am running a lot of new applications on it. The OS and everything works all the same but I get more desktop space and more window frame visibility as a result (plus... for a no-name brand screen, it is pretty sharp compared to the one I replaced!)

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @05:20AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 03, @05:20AM (#1119305)

          If you're going to wuss out and replace it instead of repair it .. its only two pixels that need to be fixed. </sarcasm>

    • (Score: 2) by rufty on Sunday March 07, @02:39PM

      by rufty (381) on Sunday March 07, @02:39PM (#1121037)

      1280x800 on my MacBook 2010 Upgraded the memory to 10GB (max recommended, 2GB ;-) SSD + spinning rust where the DVD used to be. Must look into ThinkPads.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, @04:20PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 27, @04:20PM (#1117965)

    My phone is some obscene number of half-pixels, but it usually operates at half resolution... On desktop/laptop, 1920x1080 across the board, but I never run browser windows fullscreen, usually tiled at 55% on the left side.

  • (Score: 2) by dltaylor on Saturday February 27, @06:23PM

    by dltaylor (4693) on Saturday February 27, @06:23PM (#1117993)

    Either this desktop, or the Pi 4 at the "breakfast" table. In quotes, because it usually is used as a workbench, although I don't remember ever having an Amiga on it.

    I'd still like to find something around 2880x1800 or 3840x2400.

  • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Sunday February 28, @02:31AM

    by Magic Oddball (3847) on Sunday February 28, @02:31AM (#1118094) Journal

    My desktop resolution is 1920x1080, viewed on a 24" screen, but I usually have my main browser window at around 1050px wide unless there's a really good reason to temporarily expand it.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Azuma Hazuki on Sunday February 28, @05:03AM (1 child)

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Sunday February 28, @05:03AM (#1118123) Journal

    I got someone's Thinkpad E495 (Ryzen 7 3700U) off EBay for $500 in November 2019 because I don't think he knew what he was selling, just that "[his] mother got [him] a Mac and it's way cooler." It has a 1920x1080 screen, my first ever, and I love it. 2560x1440 would be even better and my vision's good enough to use that without any display scaling, but Full HD is enough :)

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, @03:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 21, @03:27PM (#1127132)

      I’ve seen people try to sell cheap good laptops from the back of trucks at big box stores - I guess they are using eBay too?

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by lentilla on Sunday February 28, @06:54AM (6 children)

    by lentilla (1770) on Sunday February 28, @06:54AM (#1118133)

    1680x1050 in the 16:10 aspect ratio. Over the last few months, every few days it goes through a period of the black pixels being reddish. Annoying, but not annoying enough to have me swap it out for one of the 16:9 models.

    I find working at 16:9 always missing height, perhaps I simply need a larger monitor - I suppose I'll discover that when I finally have to retire the 16:10 model.

    16:9 is better for watching movies, but I don't understand how anyone can stand working with short monitors with the current state-of-the-art websites that put crap at the top and crap at the bottom. And my all-time favourite, the header that covers a line or two when you press PageDown, and then expands the header when you attempt to scroll upwards. (So you end up pressing PageDown, Up, Up, Up, Down, Down.) Brilliant design.

    Also, thank goodness for square pixels. I was reminded by this because it is now immediately obvious what aspect ratio the screen is based on resolution but that wasn't always the case. Remember Hercules and EGA? A circle drawn in EGA mode might have to be 480 pixels wide and 200 pixels high. Yuck.

    • (Score: 2) by dltaylor on Friday March 05, @10:32PM (1 child)

      by dltaylor (4693) on Friday March 05, @10:32PM (#1120567)

      1920x1200

      No, you can't have one of mine, but there are some on the web.

      • (Score: 2) by Kell on Sunday March 07, @10:43PM

        by Kell (292) on Sunday March 07, @10:43PM (#1121186)

        Ditto!!! 16:10 is my preference. I do CAD so vertical space is necessary,

        --
        Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, @08:59AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 11, @08:59AM (#1122650)

      CGA was 640x200 in 4:3, which matches your circle.

      EGA was 640x350 in 4:3, so your circle would need to be 480x350 or 274x200 unless you ran the EGA in a CGA mode.

      Hercules was 720x348.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday March 17, @06:36PM (2 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday March 17, @06:36PM (#1125442)

      >I find working at 16:9 always missing height, perhaps I simply need a larger monitor

      Agreed. I used to use my monitor in portrait mode for programming, just so I could get some decent height. Unfortunately very few screens handle off-axis viewing from above/below very well, so portrait mode means a very narrow "sweet spot" before weird fading kicks in - it's very unpleasant when your eyes are seeing different things.

      So I finally went with a bigger screen. A much bigger one: Originally a 40" 1080p TV (serious compromises there), and I'm currently using a 42" 4K TV which works wonderfully. I'd have preferred something a bit smaller - I feel like 35" would probably be about ideal, but that was the smallest 4K screen available at the time. Effectively it's a seamless 2x2 grid of 21" 1080p monitors, delivering over 20" of vertical screen space. Very often I'll use it split-screen - effectively having two nice tall portrait mode screens side by side, with the added bonus of being able to shift space between them as desired. The size can be a little overwhelming, but often I end up centering myself with one side of the screen, leving the other half as a "second monitor" off to one side, and that works much better.

      Should anyone be considering such a thing - be aware that most TVs have various issues that make them poorly suited to being used as monitors, so be sure to look at monitor-focussed reviews of the specific brand and model you're considering. There can sometimes even be variation within a given model series. And there are unavoidable compromises to be made - most prominently, lag times. 10ms is astoundingly good for a TV, 60+ms fairly common. So if a 1ms gaming monitor appeals to you, steer clear of TVs.

      That said, a couple years ago I did a bunch of research and settled on the TCL 4 series as pretty much the best budget option available. Though Samsung had a very similar option with better color but a narrower viewing range. $200 for a 42" 4K monitor with 15ms lag. Technically HDR, but it's barely brighter than a standard TV - but then TVs tend to be a lot brighter than monitors anyway, and I keep the brightness cranked way down. Haven't regretted it for a minute, and even convinced work to buy me the same screen.

      I will say I found a monitor arm a wonderful investment at home as well I can point the same monitor at desk chair, recliner, or sofa depending on what I'm doing (working, gaming, movies) and avoid the need for a separate TV. As well as sometimes tilting it like a drafting table, which provides a good eye workout, and ironically less eye strain from maintaining a fixed depth of focus for long periods. Ignore the screen size recommendations on the arms - you won't find anything but a few ultra-high dollar ones - look at the weight instead. I like to aim for at least 2x my screen's weight for the sake of stability and longevity.

      • (Score: 2) by lentilla on Friday March 19, @03:13AM (1 child)

        by lentilla (1770) on Friday March 19, @03:13AM (#1126129)

        I've only ever used televisions as monitors for fun - and they have always been older models. Aside from the lag you mentioned, what worried me was the amount of heat coming off the screen - it felt like my face was being irradiated! (Before you ask: they were LCD technology; not plasma; which would probably give me a nice tan!) Do you find heat to be an issue?

        The other, other thing to keep in mind is overscan. (Where the bezel covers some pixels at left, right, top and bottom.) As I mentioned above, I've only used older televisions, so this might be a non-issue given that nobody uses VCRs or analogue television anymore which necessitated overscan.

        A television as a monitor is definitely something worth looking in to, so thanks for the suggestions and commentary. I'll have to build a new desk - my current setup fits neatly into a corner with the monitor floating above the desk suspended by arms attached to the walls. A larger monitor means I'll have to move further out of the corner so the increased width can fit. Such is life - nothing lasts forever!

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 19, @02:17PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Friday March 19, @02:17PM (#1126249)

          My old 3+" thick Samsung put off a fair amount of heat - presumably mostly from the old CCFL backlight. My TCL is considerably cooler - it uses the newer LED backlighting and is rated at 85W, but I have power-saving (=backlight brightness - tinker with how that and contrast/brightness interact) cranked pretty high so it's probably closer to 2/3 that, and most of it vents out the back. I can still feel it shining on my face, but I have to pay attention unless it's already pretty hot in the room. It's a big flat lightbulb - that light will unavoidably heat up what it's shining on.

          But I also find I sit a lot further away unless I'm working on something that requires focus - e.g. right now I'm in my recliner where I can just reach the screen with my toes, with a wireless keyboard and mouse on a lap desk rather than using the wired versions sitting on my desk: don't be afraid of multiples - just make sure the cat (or partner) doesn't have access to the wireless mouse while you're working with the other.

          For a long time I had the TV mounted in a homemade entertainment center designed to accomodate a wall-mounted arm, with the PC hidden away on a shelf behind the TV, and connected to a small rolling desk that could tuck away underneath by a long USB cable - actually an extension cable plus the USB-hub cable, mechanically secured at either end so that any tripping would cause the cable to break away neatly in the middle rather than damaging the ports. With a curtain to hide the desk when tucked away, you'd never know there was a computer there at all.

          I've never had any issue with overscan - with an LCD display the pixels are in a fixed location, so that'd mostly be the result of shoddy manufacturing.

          I will say, plan to spend some time tinkering with the TV settings to really get the best experience. Make sure it knows it's being used as a PC monitor, or it'll likely look terrible due to image "enhancement". My old Samsung had terrible halos around text that resisted all attempts to fix with picture adjustments and nearly drove me to despair, until I stumbled across an online comment saying to set the source name to PC. No mention that that was anything but a cosmetic choice in the manual, which described everything else in detail.

          Another big one for the TCL - you can set which source it defaults to when powered on. I think it defaults to antenna, and you don't want to have to cycle through sources every time. Game mode if it has it reduces lag to a minimum (and often disables more "enhancements" as well)

          Oh, one last thought for a TV on an arm - I finally found a simple and secure way to mount decent speakers to the TV so they'd always be pointing in the right direction: a thin piece of wood (1+1/2" x 1/2"?) a bit longer than the TV is wide, balanced along the top bezel TV, with the speakers screwed on (I unscrewed the bases) to hang down beside the top of the TV in the world's fattest "T". A little black velcro tape wrapped over the TVs top bezel near the sides, with matching tape wrapped around the board, keeps it from falling off. I'm a big fan of velcro tape on the back of the TV for cable management, switch boxes, Raspberry Pi's, etc., but it never worked well for actually supporting the protruding weight of the speakers. With the board supporting the weight, the velcro only has to provide stability. Oh, and personally I tend to put the hook side of the velcro on the TV - looks cleaner, engages nicely with quality double-sided velcro cable wraps (not so much the ultra-thin style that comes in rolls), and doesn't wear out over time and need to be replaced the way the fuzzy side does.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by Dr Spin on Sunday February 28, @09:35AM (1 child)

    by Dr Spin (5239) on Sunday February 28, @09:35AM (#1118151)

    1152x900

    --
    Guns don't kill thousands, presidents kill thousands.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @04:48AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 29, @04:48AM (#1130612)

      It was actually the same standard resolution as HP's PA-RISC and other workstation graphics of the era. However the big difference was in refresh rates, where the HPs I believe ran at either 70 or 75 hz, and the Sparcs ran at 80 or 85hz. HP used vga to BNC and the sparc used 13W3 with dual wire RGB on special inner/outer connectors (see wikipedia for examples.). Both could be hooked up to a normal multi-mode monitor, but few were available when they came out, and as CRTs went away few new monitors supported the necessary modes (most only allowed fixed 60hz as well.)

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Snospar on Sunday February 28, @12:41PM (2 children)

    by Snospar (5366) Subscriber Badge on Sunday February 28, @12:41PM (#1118175)

    UWQHD

    • (Score: 2) by mmh on Sunday February 28, @05:24PM

      by mmh (721) on Sunday February 28, @05:24PM (#1118234)

      This. 3440x1440 truly is the resolution of the gods.

    • (Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday March 11, @10:29PM

      by stretch611 (6199) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 11, @10:29PM (#1122981)

      Also 3440x1440 @ 166Hz (34" display)

      Truly beautiful display... Great for playing games like 7 days to die, Valheim, Transport Fever 2 and others.

      And never blemished with a windows logo... Linux only here. (native, not WINE)

      Looks wonderful for widescreen (21:9) movies in Kodi as well.

      --
      Social Distancing... Please keep your posts at least 6 double spaced lines away from mine.
  • (Score: 1) by Cyrix6x86 on Sunday February 28, @03:54PM

    by Cyrix6x86 (13569) on Sunday February 28, @03:54PM (#1118205)

    2880x1800. MacBook Pro 15."

    2x scaling on Debian. Beautiful, crisp text, no distortion, no pwm at lower brightness levels.

    15-17" is enough screen for me. My first desktop had a 12" screen, and it wasn't until 2010 or so that I ever looked at something bigger than 19."

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by VanessaE on Sunday February 28, @04:17PM (3 children)

    1600x1200 (x3), 4:3 aspect. The way it SHOULD be. 🙂

    • (Score: 2) by Subsentient on Monday March 01, @02:43AM (2 children)

      by Subsentient (1111) on Monday March 01, @02:43AM (#1118363) Homepage Journal

      I still love 4:3 monitors, even though everyone else hates them. I really appreciate the extra vertical space. You can often see a whole function from prototype to closing brace on a tall enough monitor, and that's very useful to me. Wish they'd make new 4:3 monitors, with modern pixel counts.

      --
      “Man is not a rational animal; he is a rationalizing animal.” ― Robert A. Heinlein
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, @02:48AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 05, @02:48AM (#1120144)

        I have an old second hand 1280x1024 (5:4) that I refurbished myself for that exact reason. It took me the longest time to find it. It is currently sitting beside a 1600x900 that I need for anything that wants wide screen. Between the two of them the taller one has more screen area and takes up less space on my desk.

      • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 17, @06:49PM

        by Immerman (3985) on Wednesday March 17, @06:49PM (#1125448)

        Can't say I've ever met anyone that hates working on 4:3. Pretty much everyone misses them. But 16:9 benefits from huge economies of scale since TV sales vastly outnumber monitors, and there's lots of issues using the same assembly lines for different aspect ratios. And I suppose it legitimately works better for laptops where the keyboard is a major size-defining element.

        So I finally gave in and bought a 16:9 monitor that was tall enough. 20" tall in fact (42"diagonal) Which is actually a bit bigger than I would have liked, but the smallest 4K TV I could find at the time. (I was hoping for a 35"). Best $200 I've spent in a long time (after extensive research I settled on a TCL - most other TVs don't make good monitors.)

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @04:37PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @04:37PM (#1118218)

    One: 1920x1200

    Two: 1280x1024

    xrandr to make a single big display.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @05:26PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @05:26PM (#1118236)

    1440x900

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @07:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @07:30PM (#1118262)

    Primary for this site - LG G6 (1440x2880).

    Home PC (now basically a work PC) - 3840x2160 (primary monitor, 150% scaling), 1920x1200 (secondary monitor, borrowing from work during COVID), 1920x1080 (tertiary monitor).

  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @11:18PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @11:18PM (#1118311)

    The same resolution as Hunter Biden's Laptop.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @11:57PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday February 28, @11:57PM (#1118330)

    I've got Dual 2560x1600 monitors. Can't stand anything 1200 vertical

  • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday March 01, @12:48AM

    by Mykl (1112) on Monday March 01, @12:48AM (#1118337)

    At work SN takes up a full 1920 x 1080 screen
    At home it takes up the right half of a 2560 x 1440 screen (the left half has my emails)

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by oumuamua on Monday March 01, @02:51AM (1 child)

    by oumuamua (8401) on Monday March 01, @02:51AM (#1118367)

    It displays the exact same way it does on a desktop which makes the text way too small. If you click an article, the summary is super small font but the comments are readable. Rumor is the Soylent source code is the same as Slashdot - and Slashdot displays fine on my phone.

    • (Score: 2) by Tork on Monday March 01, @04:49PM

      by Tork (3914) on Monday March 01, @04:49PM (#1118499)
      I wonder if we have different configurations. I browse SN on an iPhone/Safari in private mode (meaning not logged in) and it works fine and Slashdot is horrible. On Slashdot I had to customize my comment viewing... meaning I have to log in to make the site semi-usable for commenting.

      Frankly I think SN's working for me because they're NOT trying to do a mobile page... but that's purely speculation on my part. I hope you get supported but I hope they don't break what's already working for me in the process.
      --
      Slashdolt Logic: "23 year old jokes about sharks and lasers are +5, Funny." 💩
  • (Score: 2) by nostyle on Monday March 01, @08:26AM

    by nostyle (11497) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 01, @08:26AM (#1118417) Journal

    Native resolution on laptop screen is 3200x1800, but the eyes are not sharp enough to really find that useful.

    ---
    My wife survived the mrna vaccinations. The only side effect she noticed was I'm not her type anymore.

  • (Score: 2) by DavePolaschek on Monday March 01, @01:14PM

    by DavePolaschek (6129) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 01, @01:14PM (#1118438) Homepage Journal

    1536 x 2048

  • (Score: 5, Touché) by DannyB on Monday March 01, @05:50PM (6 children)

    by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 01, @05:50PM (#1118524) Journal

    64 characters x 16 lines of text.

    --
    Sent from my TRS-80

    --
    The rain in Spain stays mainly inside the aircraft.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, @08:50PM (4 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01, @08:50PM (#1118605)

      That the radio shack portable one? I thought the TRS-80 with the integrated screen and floppy drives had a bit higher text resolution... but then if memory serves, compared to a commodore computer of the same era, any competing computer looked like it could display more text on the screen compared to a vic 20 or c64.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by DannyB on Monday March 01, @09:43PM (3 children)

        by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 01, @09:43PM (#1118635) Journal

        The TRS-80 that I used way predates era of commodore vic 20 and c64. This is back in 1977 when the "holy trinity" appeared in BYTE magazine. Three standard computers that would allow software developers to target standard systems. (This is way, way before the IBM PC.) At this point in time (about 1977) every personal computer was a unique creation with nothing compatible. How keyboards were interfaced to the cpu was totally no standard -- so you didn't even have device compatibility with things as basic as a keyboard -- unless you were rich enough to afford a serial terminal.

        That "holy trinity" I mentioned was:
        * Apple II
        * TRS-80
        * Commodore PET

        At this point in time the TRS-80 computer was all inside the keyboard. Sort of like a Raspbery Pi 400. They keyboard had connectors for:
        * power supply
        * monitor
        * cassette tape recorder

        The monitor and cassette tape recorder had their own power supplies, so you needed three electrical outlets total.

        --
        The rain in Spain stays mainly inside the aircraft.
        • (Score: 2) by McGruber on Wednesday March 10, @10:41PM (2 children)

          by McGruber (3038) on Wednesday March 10, @10:41PM (#1122479)

          This is back in 1977 when the "holy trinity" appeared in BYTE magazine. Three standard computers that would allow software developers to target standard systems.

          That "holy trinity" I mentioned was:
          * Apple II
          * TRS-80
          * Commodore PET

          IIRC, they were "standard computers" because all three came with versions of Microsoft BASIC in their ROMs.

          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday March 10, @10:52PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 10, @10:52PM (#1122483) Journal

            A few years ago I re-read all of the BYTE magazines up until about 1984, at which point after the introduction of the Mac, I get kind of disgusted with BYTE magazine. But I liked its early days.

            Their meaning of the word "standard" was that each, on its own, presented a uniform platform that software developers could target. You could write for a TRS-80 and have a market for however many million that Tandy / RS sold. Similar for Apple. Similar for PET.

            Prior to this, every "home brew", or "microcomputer" was different. They didn't even have things like keyboard interface standard. The best uniformity you could dare hope for on keyboard was a serial input from a serial keyboard -- at best. This is why there wasn't much commercial software prior to this "holy trinity".

            Within each platform the BASIC was also standard. So you could also write commercial software for that. But the best programs were machine code for the specific platform. Such as: VisiCalc.

            --
            The rain in Spain stays mainly inside the aircraft.
          • (Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday March 11, @03:14PM

            by DannyB (5839) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 11, @03:14PM (#1122751) Journal

            Download old BYTE magazines from here: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Byte_Magazine.htm [americanradiohistory.com]

            Or higher quality scans here: https://archive.org/details/byte-magazine [archive.org]

            Or Popular Electronics: https://www.americanradiohistory.com/Popular-Electronics-Guide.htm [americanradiohistory.com]

            Creative Computing: https://archive.org/details/creativecomputing [archive.org]

            --
            The rain in Spain stays mainly inside the aircraft.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, @10:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 09, @10:03PM (#1122023)

      Back in the day I had some slaves rendering frame by frame at 48x48 tiled bricks in the courtyard. They went on strike, revolted. I still wonder why?
      Nowadays I have an API that renders websites to my 45mpx Canon R5's sensor at 8192 x 5464. Should I go to Fuji's 100mpx?

  • (Score: 2) by coolgopher on Tuesday March 02, @11:16AM (2 children)

    by coolgopher (1157) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday March 02, @11:16AM (#1118822)

    I'm not sure why one would choose 2880x1800 as a native resolution, but that's Apple for you I guess. It's a nice amount of pixels at least.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, @08:01PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, @08:01PM (#1126424)

      I'm not sure why one would choose 2880x1800 as a native resolution, but that's Apple for you I guess.

      Because it was exactly 2x each horizontal and vertical resolution of their then-standard 1440x900, so the resulting image size was the same, just really sharp.

      • (Score: 2) by toddestan on Saturday March 27, @05:10AM

        by toddestan (4982) Subscriber Badge on Saturday March 27, @05:10AM (#1129785)

        Apple does this because they just aren't very good at scaling things for high DPI displays. All their retina displays are just 2x of a common (or once common) resolution like 1440x900. Then they just draw all the OS elements like it's 1440x900 blown up by 2x in each direction, then use the extra resolution for smoothing things like the fonts.

  • (Score: 2) by Rich on Tuesday March 02, @11:37AM (2 children)

    by Rich (945) on Tuesday March 02, @11:37AM (#1118823) Journal

    1440x900 on 15 inch, mainly, in a 2009 Unibody.

    There are also newer (Retina) Macs around, but the old one still does all the office work and most web duty. Post-IBM Thinkpads have 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 1920x1080, they are for KiCAD and embedded development and hardly ever on the web.

    • (Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Saturday March 27, @08:04PM (1 child)

      by bzipitidoo (4388) on Saturday March 27, @08:04PM (#1129998) Journal

      Just how many are using 12 year old computers anyway? Thought I was about the only one. I have 2 PCs, based around a 45nm and a 65nm 64bit CPU, that I still use. No SSE4, but other than that, the old PCs are still adequate. I ditched my 18 year old 32bit Pentium4 system earlier this year.

      • (Score: 2) by Rich on Sunday March 28, @10:50PM

        by Rich (945) on Sunday March 28, @10:50PM (#1130476) Journal

        Just how many are using 12 year old computers anyway?

        My mother and a friend run on around 2006 Fujitsu-Siemens and IBM (T61) C2Ds. And I also use a T61 as media player for my (non-HD) video projector. And I have a late-2006 MacBook Pro for audio in the home studio. Air-gapped, Logic Pro 9 off DVDs, absolutely does what's needed there, and some more. Despite its age infinitely more powerful than what the Beatles ever had, and I haven't still made it big. Can't be the hardware. ;)

        I had to get 2012 15" and 2020 16" RMBPs for a customer job (thankfully I could factor their prices into my bills...). The former is actively being used for development atm, but the latter mostly sits around, because I'm either too busy or too lazy (when recovering from being too busy) to migrate all the data, and I don't like newer versions of macOS much. The 16" one has a great sound, so it's a good portable media player around the house. Absolutely shitty value for money though, in that role ;)

  • (Score: 2) by KritonK on Tuesday March 02, @03:04PM

    by KritonK (465) on Tuesday March 02, @03:04PM (#1118868)

    EIZO FlexScan S1911, bought in 2008. Still works fine, so I have no reason to replace it.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @05:01AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @05:01AM (#1119708)

    Samsung Chromebook; 3:2 aspect ratio is a little odd, but I like it.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, @04:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, @04:58PM (#1123644)

      Same here, or 1920x1200 on my desktop. Just say no to 16:9

  • (Score: 2) by stormwyrm on Thursday March 04, @06:17AM

    by stormwyrm (717) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 04, @06:17AM (#1119725) Journal
    System76 Galago Pro 2017. Had a lot of software teething problems with the high (for the time) resolution but those seem to have been resolved in recent years with subsequent updates. Currently on Pop OS 20.04, should upgrade soon.
    --
    Nothing in life is to be feared, only to be understood. Now is the time to understand more, that we may fear less.
  • (Score: 2) by RamiK on Thursday March 04, @03:51PM

    by RamiK (1813) on Thursday March 04, @03:51PM (#1119867)

    I often run an old piece of software in the background that doesn't scale all that well so I have it scripted to lower the resolution when switching on.

    Then there's the smartphone, tablet, laptop, workstation...

    Pretty sure I got them all covered.

    --
    compiling...
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @08:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 04, @08:40PM (#1119989)

    Laptop at 1366x768 (surprised it's not in the poll to be honest since it's REALLY common, even if it's apparently finally dying out), desktop at 1280x1024, and a raspi running at 800x600.

  • (Score: 2) by crb3 on Friday March 05, @11:46AM

    by crb3 (5919) on Friday March 05, @11:46AM (#1120274)

    A Sony SDM-X82. The cinematic style of screen just doesn't appeal to me.

  • (Score: 2) by Muad'Dave on Friday March 05, @12:29PM

    by Muad'Dave (1413) on Friday March 05, @12:29PM (#1120294)

    2880x1800

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Friday March 05, @04:21PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 05, @04:21PM (#1120395) Journal

    But I really miss the colour depth on my old Trinitron and Diamondtron CRTs.

    --
    Don't let Righty keep you down.
  • (Score: 2) by mmcmonster on Sunday March 07, @12:10PM

    by mmcmonster (401) on Sunday March 07, @12:10PM (#1121025)

    There should be an option for "high enough". Resolution used to be a lot more important.

    Now, so long as things look clear and small enough, resolution doesn't matter nearly as much.

    I have a laptop. I have no idea what the actual screen resolution is. It looks nice enough.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @08:27PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 07, @08:27PM (#1121146)

    I bought a 50" TCL 4k TV for about $250 and use that as my monitor. I have it set up about 30 inches from my eyes, although I might move it back another six inches or so when I get around to mounting it. It is like having four screens worth of display area. I makes me much more productive.

  • (Score: 2) by Spamalope on Wednesday March 10, @05:52PM

    by Spamalope (5233) on Wednesday March 10, @05:52PM (#1122330) Homepage

    I answered 3840x2160 in the poll, but used a dual screen setup on a large executive desk.
    The pixel DPI on the 39" is only slightly higher than the 30" (HP ZR30w I use for photographic color correction - glorious color on that panel).
    The 39" is a crappy Seiki 30hz, with mod boards taking it to 120hz @ 4k via dual DP. If I can ever get a replacement video card I'm going to replace it with an LG 48" Oled and go with a smaller side panel.

  • (Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Thursday March 11, @11:32PM (4 children)

    by leon_the_cat (10052) on Thursday March 11, @11:32PM (#1123002) Journal

    You insensitive clod.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, @06:02AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, @06:02AM (#1123532)

      why was this comment posted in 2d then?

      - ---- -- - ------------- -------- --- ----------- -----

      FTFY.

      • (Score: 2) by leon_the_cat on Sunday March 14, @09:23PM

        by leon_the_cat (10052) on Sunday March 14, @09:23PM (#1124162) Journal

        Hyperhyperhypermathematics have enabled me to build a 1d to 2d interface. But it is sometimes malfunctions hence my misspelling of dimensional.

      • (Score: 2) by DECbot on Friday March 19, @08:41PM

        by DECbot (832) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 19, @08:41PM (#1126450) Journal

        .._. _ .._. _.__ ___... .. ._.. .. ..._ . .. _. ._ .___ _...._ _.. .. __ . _. _ .. ___ _. ._ ._.. .._ _. .. ..._ . ._. ... .

        --
        cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
    • (Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, @08:03PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 19, @08:03PM (#1126426)

      Point taken.

      (Oh, come on, you know you were thinking it.)

  • (Score: 1) by millert on Friday March 12, @04:16PM

    by millert (3626) Subscriber Badge on Friday March 12, @04:16PM (#1123278) Homepage

    30" @ 2560 x 1600 provides the vertical real estate I need for multiple shell windows and is big enough that I don't need two displays. 30" is about the max monitor size for me to not have to move my head to see the entire screen.

  • (Score: 2) by jb on Monday March 15, @03:03AM

    by jb (338) on Monday March 15, @03:03AM (#1124271)

    Second most common resolution: 132x24.

    After all, how many display modes does a terminal really need?

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by krokodilerian on Monday March 15, @09:40AM (1 child)

    by krokodilerian (6979) on Monday March 15, @09:40AM (#1124362)

    I hated 16:9, got a laptop with 4:3 (T60 with the weird motherboard from 51nb.com), and then some people gave me as a present a square monitor, Eizo EV2730Q. I love it, it's the best thing ever, and all other monitors seems annoying by comparison.
    (I have one 24" that I use for all video conferences, not to clutter my workspaces, but otherwise nothing of value happens outside the square one).

  • (Score: 2) by gznork26 on Tuesday March 16, @10:17PM

    by gznork26 (1159) on Tuesday March 16, @10:17PM (#1125054) Homepage Journal

    2880 x 1800

  • (Score: 2) by legont on Thursday March 18, @09:20PM

    by legont (4179) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 18, @09:20PM (#1125949)

    My main workhorse is 1600x900, but I clicked on 1600x something else, sorry.

    --
    "Wealth is the relentless enemy of understanding" - John Kenneth Galbraith.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by turgid on Monday March 22, @10:25PM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Monday March 22, @10:25PM (#1127713) Journal

    I've been using a 1920x1200 monitor at home for about 8 years now, and it's starting to get a bit scratched. Since I'm working mostly from home now I decided to invest in a 28" 4k monitor (3840x2160) and it's a revelation. I finally have a monitor where the pixels are too small for me to see, even with my new glasses. I can get seven XTerms side-by-side and I admit that the default font is too small. Palemoon seems to have adapted automatically to the new resolution. Rendered fonts look properly smooth! It's amazing. LibreOffice's icons don't look to big and clumsy any more.

    --
    Don't let Righty keep you down.
  • (Score: 1) by TomTheFighter on Wednesday March 24, @03:52PM

    by TomTheFighter (9781) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 24, @03:52PM (#1128395)

    Anybody got the resolution of an Etch A Sketch ? I can't find it on the back.

  • (Score: 2) by drussell on Saturday March 27, @02:29PM

    by drussell (2678) on Saturday March 27, @02:29PM (#1129868) Journal

    This one is 1280x1024

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, @07:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday March 28, @07:39PM (#1130407)

    4320x7680 (8k, pivot)

(1)