PDA

View Full Version : Should 2560x1600 wallpaper be standard?



fela
March 18th, 2009, 08:36 PM
Hi
I am proposing that we introduce a standard to always have 2560x1600 standard wallpapers in Ubuntu. The reason is that there are an increasing number of people with 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors, and it would suck to install Ubuntu and see that there's no wallpaper that fits the resolution, and have to download one that's the right size. I admit that if I had a monitor that huge, I would expect to have to do that sort of thing, but most people, I imagine, would expect to find wallpaper that fits their monitor no matter what size it is.

Plus, even though I agree that it's a minor detail, these sort of things do vastly improve the 'image' of Ubuntu when people try it for the first time. When I first started using Windows XP a few months ago (it sucks by the way, all I have it for is games), the 800x600 wallpaper stretched and pixelated on my widescreen did somehow blemish the whole user experience!

Let me know what you think,
Fela :)

Merk42
March 18th, 2009, 09:57 PM
Where are your figures that show there are "an increasing number of people with 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors" I can't think of seeing much of either advertised. Let alone those kinds being in an increasing number of homes.

I recently had a surge of visitors to my website, and only 1.2% had that resolution. The majority were either 12280x1024 or 1680x1250.

I think until 2560x1600 is more adopted Ubuntu should come with something like one of those two resolutions that scales up much better than an 800x600 image would.

fela
March 18th, 2009, 10:32 PM
Where are your figures that show there are "an increasing number of people with 30 inch 2560x1600 monitors" I can't think of seeing much of either advertised. Let alone those kinds being in an increasing number of homes.

I recently had a surge of visitors to my website, and only 1.2% had that resolution. The majority were either 12280x1024 or 1680x1250.

I think until 2560x1600 is more adopted Ubuntu should come with something like one of those two resolutions that scales up much better than an 800x600 image would.

Maybe I said it wrong. There are, of course, an increasing number of people with 2560x1600, just watch youtube videos to find that out. But I didn't mean that that resolution is the majority.

Or maybe it's just cause I'm into maxing out system specs for ultra high resolution gaming that I hear of those resolutions! BTW there are loads of them advertised, here are a few links:
http://novatech.co.uk/novatech/specpage.html?DLL-3008
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2010190020%201309825151&name=30%22
http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9179LL/A?fnode=MTY1NDA5OQ&mco=MjE0NTg4OA
http://www.microdirect.co.uk/Home/Product/37495

That's to name just a few.

Also, check out Chris Pirillo on youtube. He has two 30 inch monitors.

maxishine on youtube has a 30 inch apple screen that he benchmarks games on using the latest graphics cards.

Is that enough explaining? :P

PurposeOfReason
March 19th, 2009, 12:29 AM
As large as you can IMO, anyone can scale an image and most DEs do it for you.

smartboyathome
March 19th, 2009, 12:54 AM
We should make the wallpapers 2560x2048, not 2560x1600. Serve the newest hardware, right? ;)

days_of_ruin
March 19th, 2009, 02:26 AM
Have the default wallpaper be in svg and then have ubuntu create an image from it in the correct resolution.

fela
March 19th, 2009, 10:55 AM
Have the default wallpaper be in svg and then have ubuntu create an image from it in the correct resolution.

It is only practically possible to create svgs of wallpapers like the default Hardy wallpaper (simple vector graphics). You can't make svgs that are nearly as detailed as bitmaps, because of disk space limitations, and also cpu limitations when you get really high details. The number of vectors would simply be too many for anything except a supercomputer to handle.

Therefore, when people make wallpapers they're always gonna be in bitmap format.

fela
March 19th, 2009, 10:56 AM
We should make the wallpapers 2560x2048, not 2560x1600. Serve the newest hardware, right? ;)

I thought only high end projectors had that kind of resolution?

DASPRiD
April 21st, 2009, 03:05 PM
I've got two 30", so 5120x1600. I'd really appreciate more wallpapers for this resolution.

BslBryan
April 22nd, 2009, 07:33 PM
I believe that 2560x1600 should be standard, yes.

I do not have a monitor this large, but if there were wallpapers out there for it, my 1280x800 resolution would have more wallpapers with a quick resize in GIMP. My monitor's size is fairly common, but getting wallpapers to fit the screen is a huge hassle. :rolleyes:

hatten
April 22nd, 2009, 07:36 PM
The majority were either 12280x1024 or 1680x1250.
wow! huge screens there!

Hyper Tails
April 22nd, 2009, 07:42 PM
This sounds like a wide screen one to me

Merk42
April 22nd, 2009, 08:54 PM
I never noticed that typo, and that was so long ago. Although I wouldn't be surprised if someone with 4 monitors came in here and complained there wasn't a wallpaper for it.