So, two developments in Ryan's monitor world:
- I've been experimenting with dual monitors. (Serial Experiments Lain is what I will forever associate with dual monitors.)
- I encountered my first-ever program which told me that it refused to run in 900 x 1440 because its programmers consider 900 pixels wide too small.
I think the second of those is the more ridiculous: we've become so accustomed to our (as seen in the year 1999)
enormous computer screen resolutions that 1024 x 768 is the new 640 x 480. I remember when 640 x 480 was small, 800 x 600 was medium, and 1024 x 768 is what I got drooled for. Now when I want to use 900 x 1440 (an unorthodox resolution, to be sure, but still!), I discover that my resolution is too narrow. Never mind 640 x 480: even 800 x 600 is no longer supported by some software teams! Crazy how fast times change. :) And yet Super Mario 3 and Super Mario World remain the two best Mario games ever. ;)
3 comments:
1024x768 is tiny. I never run lower than 1600x1200.
I usually ran at the 4:3 size that was in between 1024 x 768 and 1600 x 1200. I forget what it is. iirc it's 1200 x 1024, but my math suggests that this is a 5:4 ratio and not a 4:3 one, so *shrug*. Then again, 1440 x 900 ain't exactly 16:9 either (obviously: 1600 x 900 would be!), and it looks like it's widescreen to me, so meh.
I'm sorry, I can't hear you past my 1920x1080.
The popular resolution you are looking for is 1280x1024 and yes it is not a 5:3 resolution. For some reason it is the only XGA series resolution (in the boundaries of sanity) that is not 4:3. Enjoy that and know why things look so warped in other 4:3 resolutions.
Post a Comment