|
|
Posted by Blinky the Shark on 07/02/07 22:22
Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Neredbojias wrote:
>> On Mon, 02 Jul 2007 19:34:28 GMT Blinky the Shark scribed:
>>
>>>>> Screen Resolutions 1 1024x768 50.90% 2 1280x1024
>>>>> 16.81% 3 800x600 8.93% 4 1280x800 8.20% 5
>>>>> 1152x864 3.99% 6 1440x900 2.77% 7 1680x1050
>>>>> 1.85% 8 1280x768 1.26% 9 1280x960 1.07% 10
>>>>> 1400x1050 1.00%
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20
>>>>
>>>> That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
>>>> takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
>>>> flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
>>>> majority size was still 640x480 by far.
>>>>
>>>> What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
>>>> ratio.
>>>
>>> As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
>>> numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
>>> monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
>>> 1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
>>> those?
>>
>> Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next
>
> IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and 20"
IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)
> monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the 21"
> and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling when
WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes. :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|