Posted by Neredbojias on 07/02/07 21:53

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
monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)

I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go that
high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the screen
elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform. <g>

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.

[Back to original message]