I bought a
Dell 22"
Widescreen Monitor today.
I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am stuck
with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really small.
Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else have the same
"problem" with their monitor/eyes?

This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you have
seen users using on your sites?

"Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote:

> I bought a
> Dell
> 22" Widescreen Monitor today.

which is an E228WFP

I decided not to buy E* Dell monitors (IIRC all E* use 6 bit/channel
color, thanks Els).

> I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am
> stuck with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really
> small. Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else
> have the same "problem" with their monitor/eyes?

Nope. But I am near sighted and somehow that works miracles if one's
behind a computer monitor. (I've a 24" @ 1920 x 1200).

Note that running your monitor on a non-native resolution (like the one
you gave) results in quite a shitty picture IMO.

In Windows you can select larger fonts.

> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you
> have seen users using on your sites?

Worthless measurement. More important is the canvas size or size of the
browser window, and you probably want to know if the website itself is
scaled by the browser and/or if the visitor uses different font /
different font sizes.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

Viper <venomx@gmail.com> wrote in message:
fLudnXopL5aEVVnanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com,

> I bought a
> Dell
> 22" Widescreen Monitor today.
> I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am
> stuck with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really
> small. Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else
> have the same "problem" with their monitor/eyes?

Right-click on the desktop and select Properties and then the Appearance
tab. Select Font Size: Large Fonts.

My eyes definitely aren't what they used to be, but I'm running a 27.5"
Samsung (275T) at 1920 by 1200 and can do a lot of routine things now
without my glasses.
--
Red

John Bokma wrote:

> "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I bought a
>> Dell
>> 22" Widescreen Monitor today.
>
> which is an E228WFP
>
> I decided not to buy E* Dell monitors (IIRC all E* use 6 bit/channel
> color, thanks Els).
>
>> I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am
>> stuck with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really
>> small. Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else
>> have the same "problem" with their monitor/eyes?
>
> Nope. But I am near sighted and somehow that works miracles if one's
> behind a computer monitor. (I've a 24" @ 1920 x 1200).

And ditto that for size and pixels here. I've been using reading glasses
for about ten years -- not just for the screens.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fLudnXopL5aEVVnanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>I bought a
>Dell 22"
>Widescreen Monitor today.
> I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am
> stuck with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really small.
>
> Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else have the same
> "problem" with their monitor/eyes?

In order to get the crispest display I'd suggest running your monitor at its
full resolution. However, as others have said, large-fonts (or the
equivalent if you run Linux) may be the way to go. It might be worth
persevering for a few days with everything looking small, to see if you get
used to it - if it gives you eye strain or a headack then switch to large
fonts.

> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you have
> seen users using on your sites?

Me. 1920x1200 (which is interesting because it highlights how many sites are
fixed "narrow" width), but I normally surf with my browser set to about
800x600 because it allows me to have multiple browser windows open. I
suspect (but don't have the figures to prove it) that most users are
1024x768 or slightly smaller. I suppose good page design means that the
browser size shouldn't matter (... much).
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

Brian Cryer wrote:

> "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fLudnXopL5aEVVnanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
>>I bought a
>>Dell 22"
>>Widescreen Monitor today.
>> I really wanted to run it on the 1680x1050 screen resolution but I am
>> stuck with 1280x768 because anything higher makes everything really small.
>>
>> Its probably just me thinking its too small. Anyone else have the same
>> "problem" with their monitor/eyes?
>
> In order to get the crispest display I'd suggest running your monitor at its
> full resolution. However, as others have said, large-fonts (or the
> equivalent if you run Linux) may be the way to go. It might be worth
> persevering for a few days with everything looking small, to see if you get
> used to it - if it gives you eye strain or a headack then switch to large
> fonts.
>
>> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you have
>> seen users using on your sites?
>
> Me. 1920x1200 (which is interesting because it highlights how many sites are
> fixed "narrow" width), but I normally surf with my browser set to about
> 800x600 because it allows me to have multiple browser windows open. I

Not only do I have the same 1920x1200 as you, I also only run my browsers
in partial windows (horizontally). Exactly half width: 960x1200.

In this desktop (one of eight), which is dedicated to online stuff, all my
browsers are on the left half, and my news clients are on the right (also
filling exactly that half of the screen). When I open a compose window
like the one I'm writing with right now, it's on the laft half, so I can
still refer to my news client over on that side --->

http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/widescreen.jpg

The big screen is new to me (Christmas) and I'm lovin' it. How nice to be
able to look at two browsers side beside that used to be pretty much one
screen each.


--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

On 27 Feb, 02:17, "Viper" <ven...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I bought a
> Dell 22"
> Widescreen Monitor today.

Are you spamming Walmart products now?

"Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.02.27.10.12.56.562537@thurston.blink ynet.net...
> Brian Cryer wrote:
>> "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:fLudnXopL5aEVVnanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
<snip>
>>> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you
>>> have
>>> seen users using on your sites?
>>
>> Me. 1920x1200 (which is interesting because it highlights how many sites
>> are
>> fixed "narrow" width), but I normally surf with my browser set to about
>> 800x600 because it allows me to have multiple browser windows open. I
>
> Not only do I have the same 1920x1200 as you, I also only run my browsers
> in partial windows (horizontally). Exactly half width: 960x1200.
>
> In this desktop (one of eight), which is dedicated to online stuff, all my
> browsers are on the left half, and my news clients are on the right (also
> filling exactly that half of the screen). When I open a compose window
> like the one I'm writing with right now, it's on the laft half, so I can
> still refer to my news client over on that side --->
>
> http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/widescreen.jpg

Awsome. Its great to have lots of screen area. With multiple desktops you
have a big advantage over me ... I'm stuck in Windows land.

> The big screen is new to me (Christmas) and I'm lovin' it. How nice to be
> able to look at two browsers side beside that used to be pretty much one
> screen each.

I managed to persuade my boss to buy me my current monitor (less than a week
old). Like you, having two (or more) windows open side by side is a real
boon. I never got on with two screens, but love widescreen. I'm now
wondering about replacing the 1280x1024 display I use at home.
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian

"Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> Awsome. Its great to have lots of screen area. With multiple desktops
> you have a big advantage over me ... I'm stuck in Windows land.

Huh? You mean virtual desktops? You can have those in Windows land as
well. Multiple monitors etc. works in Windows as well.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

John Bokma wrote:

>> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you
>> have seen users using on your sites?
>
> Worthless measurement. More important is the canvas size or size of the
> browser window, and you probably want to know if the website itself is
> scaled by the browser and/or if the visitor uses different font /
> different font sizes.

640x480 on a 36" monitor?

Tony <nospam@example.com> wrote:

> John Bokma wrote:
>
>>> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you
>>> have seen users using on your sites?
>>
>> Worthless measurement. More important is the canvas size or size of the
>> browser window, and you probably want to know if the website itself is
>> scaled by the browser and/or if the visitor uses different font /
>> different font sizes.
>
> 640x480 on a 36" monitor?

My monitor does PIP, I probably could connect a laptop to it :-D.

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/

Brian Cryer wrote:

> "Blinky the Shark" <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.02.27.10.12.56.562537@thurston.blink ynet.net...
>> Brian Cryer wrote:
>>> "Viper" <venomx@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:fLudnXopL5aEVVnanZ2dnUVZ_vOlnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> <snip>
>>>> This got me to wondering.... Whats the highest screen resolution you
>>>> have
>>>> seen users using on your sites?
>>>
>>> Me. 1920x1200 (which is interesting because it highlights how many sites
>>> are
>>> fixed "narrow" width), but I normally surf with my browser set to about
>>> 800x600 because it allows me to have multiple browser windows open. I
>>
>> Not only do I have the same 1920x1200 as you, I also only run my browsers
>> in partial windows (horizontally). Exactly half width: 960x1200.
>>
>> In this desktop (one of eight), which is dedicated to online stuff, all my
>> browsers are on the left half, and my news clients are on the right (also
>> filling exactly that half of the screen). When I open a compose window
>> like the one I'm writing with right now, it's on the laft half, so I can
>> still refer to my news client over on that side --->
>>
>> http://blinkynet.net/stuff/comp/widescreen.jpg
>
> Awsome. Its great to have lots of screen area. With multiple desktops you
> have a big advantage over me ... I'm stuck in Windows land.

If you didn't catch this, look down at the right side of my "task bar", as
you know it in Windows, and you'll see a grid of eight little boxes with
two-letter codes on them. Those are my desktops, waiting to be clicked
there -- all of them have programs that I use frequently already running
and with their windows arranged nicely. OnLine, GRaphics, EDiting,
WeBsites (editor and project manager, sometimes stand-alone FTP app),
OFfise apps, FileManagement, CommandLineInterface (Console) (hey,
that's three letters!), MiScellaneous.

I mention this to tempt you <g>, perhaps, to look into multiple desktop
utils for Windows -- I don't know what's out there, but back several years
ago when I was still running Windows on this box I used a similar
multi-desktop tool.

>> The big screen is new to me (Christmas) and I'm lovin' it. How nice to
>> be able to look at two browsers side beside that used to be pretty much
>> one screen each.
>
> I managed to persuade my boss to buy me my current monitor (less than a
> week old). Like you, having two (or more) windows open side by side is a
> real boon. I never got on with two screens, but love widescreen. I'm now
> wondering about replacing the 1280x1024 display I use at home.

For the record, and because when sharks aren't eating[1] they're actually
pretty chatty <g>, I moved into this monitor from a 19" 1400x1050 Sony
Trinitron CRT. I'd had two of those (not used together).

[1] Of course we're *usually* eating, or at least looking for food...

--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Blinky: http://blinkynet.net

"John Bokma" <john@castleamber.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A5165FE3A0A2castleamber@130.133.1.4...
> "Brian Cryer" <brian.cryer@127.0.0.1.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Awsome. Its great to have lots of screen area. With multiple desktops
>> you have a big advantage over me ... I'm stuck in Windows land.
>
> Huh? You mean virtual desktops? You can have those in Windows land as
> well. Multiple monitors etc. works in Windows as well.

Just downloaded the Microsoft power tools desktop manager ... seems a bit
"clunky", but I will see how I get on with it. Do you have any
recommendations for an alternative?
--
Brian Cryer
www.cryer.co.uk/brian