How large is your screen(s)?

[fela]

In the poll I put the most common resolutions but if you have a nonstandard resolution please tell me.

Also do you use dual or tri monitors? Or more?

Me? I use dual 19 inch 1440x900 monitors, both Samsung syncmasters, which will soon change to one 17 inch 1280x1024 (one of my 19 inch screens actually belongs to someone else but has been out of use for a while).

[Tipped OuT]

Got to love that 1280x800 resolution. ;)

[fela]

Got to love that 1280x800 resolution. ;)

And I thought it was hard using 1440x900...

You're on a macbook right?

[Tipped OuT]

And I thought it was hard using 1440x900...

You're on a macbook right?

Nope, good old laptop-PC.

http://di1.shopping.com/images1/pi/4a/1e/a7/21687268-177x150-0-0.jpg

[Skripka]

Got to love that 1280x800 resolution. ;)

Pfffft. Get A 22" LCD Panel. :)

[-grubby]

1440x900

[Mmmbopdowedop]

21.5"

1920x1080

[Giant Speck]

1366 x 768

[beastrace91]

My Sager runs at 1680x1050 on a 15.4" screen, and when I bought it they even had an option to get 1920x1200 res on that same size! But 1680x1050 is more than enough for me (besides the other screen was an extra 150$ hehehe)

And my netbook runs at a whopping 1024x600 xD

~Jeff

[Tipped OuT]

Pfffft. Get A 22" LCD Panel. :)

That one went straight to my ego. Ouch. :(

[credobyte]

1280x1024 [ 17'' ]

[chriskin]

Got to love that 1280x800 resolution. ;)

:popcorn:

[chriskin]

by the way, people with more than one pcs can't vote here :S

[eragon100]

one 20 inch 1680x1050 acer al2016w widescreen monitor

[red_Marvin]

Right now I'm running 1280x800+1280+x1024 with twinview (laptop+external), if I really need the estate, I have a second 1280x1024 monitor connected to a backup computer that I only really boot when I need to print something. Synergy really is useful then!

[fela]

1366 x 768

I've lost count of how many posts I've seen about people trying to get this resolution working with Linux. Was it easy for you?

[fela]

by the way, people with more than one pcs can't vote here :S

Me and the rest of my family have 6 computers between us, but I'm talking about my main PC that I do work and stuff on.

On the TV computer that's also used by everyone except me for other purposes, there's a 24 inch 1920x1200 monitor...me likey :) OTOH we also have a little micro ATX server that runs headless in the darkroom, me likey even more :D

[xpod]

Desktop has a 22" @ 1680x1050 along with a 19" @ 1440x900.
Both just plain old VGA Beliena`s.Our older kids have the nice HD screens but dads still slumming it with VGA.
I only ended up with the larger 22" after the shop in question failed to supply the matching 19" they assured me they had in stock at the time.As a gesture of good will they gave me 3 free inches for my troubles.

The old laptop i`m currently using is only a meager 1024x768.

[j7%<RmUg]

1280 x 1024 is good because most games get really nice framerates and its nice and square.

[fela]

1280 x 1024 is good because most games get really nice framerates and its nice and square.

I can totally agree with you there. I just switched to a 17 inch monitor (my mum wants the extra 19 inch that I had, and I swapped the other 19 inch with someone for her 17 inch). The 17 inch actually has more pixels and so it looks much nicer as everything isn't big and ugly if you see what I mean, plus you can fit much more on the screen due to the fact that it's square (most things on a desktop require more vertical space than width).

[Incendia]

1440 x 900.
Orr, a 17" laptop ;]

[laceration]

1920 x 1080 is non-standard?? My monitor is also a hidef televison.

[itreius]

My main display is a 22 inch Samsung LCD running 1680x1050

[beastrace91]

I've lost count of how many posts I've seen about people trying to get this resolution working with Linux. Was it easy for you?

I use this resolution on my 32" LCD TV all the time, works just fine via the nVidia control panel.

~Jeff

[bodyharvester]

1024x600

8.9" screen (dell mini 9)

[fela]

I use this resolution on my 32" LCD TV all the time, works just fine via the nVidia control panel.

~Jeff

Maybe it's the usual user error then :)

Get off chair, Replace user and click OK. :lolflag:

[fela]

1440 x 900.
Orr, a 17" laptop ;]

That's not amazing, you can get them up to 1920x1200 (ultra high pixel density laptop screens - very expensive though).


1920 x 1080 is non-standard?? My monitor is also a hidef televison.

It's very standard for a HDTV and it's becoming more standard for computer monitors, but computer monitors are usually either 4:3, 5:4 or 8:5, 16:9 is actually not very common on computers yet. Even 8:5 has pretty much only just become mainstream, well in the past couple years anyway.

[Skripka]

It's very standard for a HDTV and it's becoming more standard for computer monitors, but computer monitors are usually either 4:3, 5:4 or 8:5, 16:9 is actually not very common on computers yet. Even 8:5 has pretty much only just become mainstream, well in the past couple years anyway.

It is amusing though, since most tasks on a computer are better served by a tall monitor rather than a wide one.

[Mmmbopdowedop]

It is amusing though, since most tasks on a computer are better served by a tall monitor rather than a wide one.

You can always turn a widescreen on it's side for Publishing or so if needed.

I find most things suit widescreens, more characters on a line before it gets chopped off, more tabs in a browser and on the taskbar, easier to split screen because one window can use a nice amount of screen space and still be readable.

Nothing I do would suit a regular monitor better than a Widescreen anyways. :)

[Skripka]

You can always turn a widescreen on it's side for Publishing or so if needed.


Most of the low-end (consumer grade) monitors don't have the mountings for this, unfortunately.



I find most things suit widescreens, more characters on a line before it gets chopped off, more tabs in a browser and on the taskbar, easier to split screen because one window can use a nice amount of screen space and still be readable.

Nothing I do would suit a regular monitor better than a Widescreen anyways. :)

I prefer less scrolling...OS & app GUIs (across the board) are NOT designed for widescreen monitors. They are designed with taller 4X3 in mind.

[Kingsley]

800x600 is how I always roll.

[RiceMonster]

1920x1080

[Conu]

40 inch 1920 x 1080
should really put the 1080 in the poll list:) It can be a bit of "fun" to configure!

[Tipped OuT]

800x600 is how I always roll.

lawl

[Stupid_newbie]

1280x1024 0n two 22" Flat panel LCD. KVM to Ubuntu server #2 on Monitor 2

[days_of_ruin]

No 1920x1080 option? FAIL.

[Incendia]

800x600 is how I always roll.

bahah.

[SuperSonic4]

Me? I use dual 19 inch 1440x900 monitors, both Samsung syncmasters

This

[Sunflower1970]

Two 17" monitors with 1280x1024 resolution, and one laptop with 1024x786 resolution.

I chose 1280x1024 in the poll though...

[fela]

800x600 is how I always roll.

:lolflag: you must have 36 different workspaces :)

[fela]

This

I've since (in the last 10 minutes) switched to one 17 inch 1280x1024. I prefer it to two 19 inch widescreens! That must say something about the advantages of having a tall, rather than wide, screen.

[SuperSonic4]

Cool, I use twinview on mine and use the second to watch videos. Thank goodness VLC has a 16:10 option :D

[hessiess]

Often not large enough, even with virtual desktops.

[nubimax]

Samsung 245 1920x1200 so that I can enlarge the printing enough to be able to see it.

[HappyFeet]

In the poll I put the most common resolutions but if you have a nonstandard resolution please tell me.

Also do you use dual or tri monitors? Or more?

Me? I use dual 19 inch 1440x900 monitors, both Samsung syncmasters, which will soon change to one 17 inch 1280x1024 (one of my 19 inch screens actually belongs to someone else but has been out of use for a while).
So why are you going to be using one 17" monitor? You can use a 19" and 17" at the same time.

[HappyFeet]

Cool, I use twinview on mine and use the second to watch videos. Thank goodness VLC has a 16:10 option :D

I do the same thing. My second monitor is used mainly for TV and streaming video.

[Joeb454]

Where's the option for 3360x1050? (2x 20" screens)

Also, a multiple choice poll may have been better, for those who have > 1 PC

[coldReactive]

Mine is 1440x900

[wingnux]

1152x864

[cgroza]

Let me get a ruller....:-)

[steev182]

1680x1050 and 1024x600

[cgroza]

I should get a widescreen monitor

[fela]

So why are you going to be using one 17" monitor? You can use a 19" and 17" at the same time.

First off, I was using one 19 inch widescreen, and there was also a 19 inch widescreen connected to another computer in the house, which then got upgraded to a 24 inch widescreen. We also aquired a 17 inch from a friend. My sister's computer didn't have a screen yet so that used the 19 inch that was connected to the computer that got upgraded to 24 inch.

So now there's a situation where there's three computers: mine, the mac (the one with the 24 inch screen), and my sister's, and there's a redundant 17 inch screen as the 2 19 inch screens are being used for mine and my sister's. So what I did was connect the 17 inch to my sister's, and take the 2 19 inch ones for myself for a dual monitor setup.

And along comes the dell optiplex second hand computer that my mum's gonna use for studying. It needs a screen. So that'll have one of the 19 inches that were on my computer, the other 19 inch will go on my sister's, and it leaves me with the 17 inch.

Bit long winded :P

[Giant Speck]

I've lost count of how many posts I've seen about people trying to get this resolution working with Linux. Was it easy for you?

Yes, but it worked correctly only after installing the proper NVIDIA drivers. When I first installed Ubuntu on this computer, it defaulted to some smaller resolution.

[fela]

I should get a widescreen monitor

ONLY if you watch movies/TV. Trust me for work a square monitor is MUCH more productive, if it's small anyway. A 2560x1600 monitor is good for anything, except gaming (low fps, and you'd have to sit so far away that the extra definition wouldn't be worth it: better to get a 1920x1080 HDTV and play from your sofa).

[Frak]

Windows Box - 1680 x 1050
Mac Box - 2560 x 1600 Cinema Display

[andrek]

1366x768 - 15,6" widescreen 16:9. (Dell Studio 1555)

[bear24rw]

3728x1152

[Exodist]

I cant vote, my screen is 1400x1050
I have a 20.1 Westing House LCD.

[RiceMonster]

No Linux box? Oh, you're the troll from that other thread. Sorry.

lol He's not a troll.

Oh wait, he probably didn't agree with you. Must be a troll.

[Tipped OuT]

lol He's not a troll.

Oh wait, he probably didn't agree with you. Must be a troll.

You're a troll, for pointing out he isn't a troll, when in fact you're the troll.

Troll.

:P

[RiceMonster]

You're a troll, for pointing out he isn't a troll, when in fact you're the troll.

Troll.

:P

Stop trolling me by accusing me of reverse trolling by stating another using is not trolling, when I am in fact, not trolling.

[Giant Speck]

Suddenly, TROLLS! THOUSANDS OF THEM.

Also corgis. And bananas.

[Frak]

Suddenly, TROLLS! THOUSANDS OF THEM.

Also corgis. And bananas.
And Schnauzers.

[sim-value]

22" ... but now the same 250€ would by a 26 " *wantshave*

[Frak]

22" ... but now the same 250€ would by a 26 " *wantshave*
What's sad is that in the US, you can buy monitors for less than $250 that are at 26" or a tad bit over. When you figure the exchange rate in, that's sad.

[misfitpierce]

1440X900 FTW! Love the reso...

[the8thstar]

My 15.4" laptop LCD screen runs on 1280x800 resolution. My desktop computer CRT 17" screen is set to 1024x768.

[hobo14]

1360 x 768 --not in the poll :(

[Vostrocity]

1280x800 on a 15". It's small, but good since I have horrible eyesight. :)

[BenAshton24]

Mine is 1920x1080

[tjwoosta]

800x600, jk, however I do remember those days running win98 on a crt at 800x600. I used to play quake 2 at 640x480 :)

At the moment I'm on my laptop using 1280x800, I also have another computer with an old crt at 1024x768.

[etnlIcarus]

40 inch 1920x1080. Poll is fail.

[Tipped OuT]

40 inch 1920x1080. Poll is fail.

Your screen resolution is fail.

Just kidding. :P

[etnlIcarus]

You're adopted.


(Just kidding).

[fela]

Your screen resolution is fail.

Just kidding. :P

I should have said 1920x1200 OR 1920x1080 as the poll option. Please, anyone with a 1080 screen vote for the 1920 option.

[jerrrys]

thanks to a recent garage sale i now run 1400 x 1050, but nowhere to vote :(

[fela]

No one's voted 2560x1600 yet, how strange...

[Frak]

No one's voted 2560x1600 yet, how strange...

I voted for the first one I saw. Anything beyond that is the ONE CHOICE ONLY flaw. I would have picked 1680 and 2560.

[fela]

I voted for the first one I saw. Anything beyond that is the ONE CHOICE ONLY flaw. I would have picked 1680 and 2560.

You're the one from that other thread...

But yeah next time I'll do multiple choice.

[LoloftheRings]

1440x900 19"
Samsung Syncmaster too.

It's large enough for me. Just use dwm and remove the toolbars from every app and you've got pixels enough :)

[aysiu]

I voted 1024x768, because that was the closest option. I actually have 1024x576 on my HP Mini.

And, yes, that is my only computer.

[aldld]

1440x900. I guess this means that I should go and get a bigger one. (Or I could just get a second monitor)

[Shazaam]

1600x900 native on an HP 2009m lcd.

[fela]

1600x900 native on an HP 2009m lcd.

Finally someone with 1600x900 :)

[toupeiro]

at home: 3360x1050 (dual Acer 22" screens @1680x1050)
at work: 2560x1600 (Dell 30" LCD)

[Redundant Username]

19 inch HPw1907 @1440x900

[Frak]

I voted 1024x768, because that was the closest option. I actually have 1024x576 on my HP Mini.

And, yes, that is my only computer.
What about your Macbook/Powerbook? Or is that your wife's?

[handy]

It is amusing though, since most tasks on a computer are better served by a tall monitor rather than a wide one.

I don't agree.

Though it comes down to what tasks the computer is mainly used for.

These days I'm mostly using a browser, or Worker when at the computer.

I have a 24" iMac & a what used to be standard sized 19" CRT display for my 2nd system.

Whenever I use the 19" I wish I was using the 24", as the 19" display is just too narrow & crowded by comparison. I use large fonts on both setups, & am usually sitting 4 to 5 feet away from the monitors.

I know it is just what you become used to.

[cartman640]

24" (1920x1200) + 20" (1680x1050) Samsungs on my main machine.
15.4" (1440x900) on my MacbookPro.

[zeroseven0183]

Samsung SyncMaster 933 (1440x900)

My eyes hurt with this. :shock:

[jerrrys]

I just went thru all 91 post and so far Im the only one running 1400 x 1050. Is this why my computer plays the theme from the Twilight Zone instead of beeping :-k

[ukripper]

1280 X 800 here on Dell vostro 1400 with intel graphics card and 14.1 inches screen

[Groucho Marxist]

In the poll I put the most common resolutions but if you have a nonstandard resolution please tell me.

Also do you use dual or tri monitors? Or more?

Me? I use dual 19 inch 1440x900 monitors, both Samsung syncmasters, which will soon change to one 17 inch 1280x1024 (one of my 19 inch screens actually belongs to someone else but has been out of use for a while).

At home, 1280x800 with one monitor; at work, two monitors at 1024x768.

[openfly]

http://www.aculei.net/~mjoyce/dump/lunixscreenshot.jpg

Yep 30 inches of awesome.

[Firestem4]

I'm using a single 19" Widescreen @ native 1440x900 resolution. Its a newer Dell monitor that is actually pretty damn good in regards to quality, clarity, and contrast.

I'm not a Dell fan and haven't been for years, but this monitor, for the price ($120) was a good deal and it was a very good purchase in retrospect =)

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Displays/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=19&sku=320-7459

[sydbat]

Not that I'm bragging or anything, but my wife thinks the size is perfect...not too big and not too small...what were we talking about...?

[fela]

Not that I'm bragging or anything, but my wife thinks the size is perfect...not too big and not too small...what were we talking about...?

Thread is strictly about screen size, not other thing-a-me-bobs.

It's actually a serious thread, I wanted to find out what kind of screen size people get and why.

[hyperdude111]

1920 x 1080

[dragos240]

I have a 1280 x 1024 and a 1024 by 600.

[TombKing]

1440x900 on my oversized 17" laptop.
The work laptop is 1280x800 with 1280x1024 on the 2nd monitor.

[Stupid_newbie]

http://www.aculei.net/~mjoyce/dump/lunixscreenshot.jpg

Yep 30 inches of awesome.

wow, sexy!

[fela]

http://www.aculei.net/~mjoyce/dump/lunixscreenshot.jpg

Yep 30 inches of awesome.

You could do so much more with that resolution.

[openfly]

Yeah fela, but I wouldn't screenshot it.

[scragar]

Using 3 monitors and 2PCs, main PC has two 1280 flat screens, second PC has 1024 on a CRT, there's also a laptop running @ 1280.

[fela]

Yeah fela, but I wouldn't screenshot it.

:lolflag:

[DoktorSeven]

1280x960. No idea how 1280x1024 became a "standard" resolution (for regular old monitors) because it's not even 4:3.

[fela]

1280x960. No idea how 1280x1024 became a "standard" resolution (for regular old monitors) because it's not even 4:3.

I prefer 5:4 to both 4:3, 16:9 and 8:5 for desktop work. Of course, 16:9 is best for movies.

I'm going to get a 1920x1080 (1080p HD 16:9) 22 inch monitor though to complement my current 17 inch 1280x1024, so I'll have the best of both worlds :P

[markbuntu]

Hmmm....3750 x 1200 sort of. 1650x1050 + 1920x1200 + 1280x1024

[fela]

Hmmm....3750 x 1200 sort of. 1650x1050 + 1920x1200 + 1280x1024

...and is that justified?

You need to do video editing or something to justify that much screen space. I'm finding it hard scraping together an excuse to splurge on an extra 22 inch widescreen (1080p) this year to complement my current 17 inch 1280x1024 setup. It's either that or a new CPU as I can't afford both - I am B.R.O.K.E.

[PurposeOfReason]

Just a 22" @ 1680x1050 full of IPS goodness.. I used to rock two of them but with the gaming build in progress I needed a monitor for that.

[oldsoundguy]

can't vote .. numbers are not there

And resolution has nothing to do with screen size, but with how you want to VIEW on your screen .. and with things like vision and being able to read the type face taking precedence!

I have a 24" wide screen cinema display (1000:1 contrast ratio) that I run in 1024 x 1600 (yes, that's right .. it is run in portrait mode most of the time.)

[fela]

can't vote .. numbers are not there

And resolution has nothing to do with screen size, but with how you want to VIEW on your screen .. and with things like vision and being able to read the type face taking precedence!

I have a 24" wide screen cinema display (1000:1 contrast ratio) that I run in 1024 x 1600 (yes, that's right .. it is run in portrait mode most of the time.)

Resolution is the only determining factor in how much you can fit on your screen. That is basically what the poll is about - it's not about accessibility features such as low PPI. And anyway I think most people prefer a high PPI for more detail (I do anyways).

And you must have some strange 24" screen to have a native resolution of 1600x1024 - or is that not its native resolution? It's not even exactly 8:5 - it's 8:5.12, which is really weird.

[Странник]

I have a weird resolution:

1366 x 768

It's not on the poll

This is 15,6 inch laptop screen

[Sarai the Geek]

I would never have guessed that my screen res, 1680x1050 (on a sys76 pangolin) would be the most popular one! It's a beast to find wallpapers for on deviant art.

[seehymeh]

1024x600 eeepc-901

[NCLI]

Two 1920x1080 monitors. 24".

[oldsoundguy]

Resolution is the only determining factor in how much you can fit on your screen. (wrong! Refresh rate and dot pitch will have an influence also!)

(that also determines the size of the type face displayed.)

That is basically what the poll is about - it's not about accessibility features such as low PPI. And anyway I think most people prefer a high PPI for more detail (I do anyways).

And you must have some strange 24" screen to have a native resolution of 1600x1024 - or is that not its native resolution? It's not even exactly 8:5 - it's 8:5.12, which is really weird.

I said I had a CINEMA display .. it is a WIDE SCREEN 24" HP running a 16x9 (or 10) basic aspect ratio, and no, that is not native resolution. It is what I came up with that gave me the most bang for my buck to include that all important "can I read the type in my eMail or from a web site."
I could go much higher in resolution, but then things become unreadable as the print gets smaller and smaller.

[mirado]

15" Trinitron Multiscan 100sf

Ubuntu doesn't have a resolution to fit the screen
This saddens me

[fela]

15" Trinitron Multiscan 100sf

Ubuntu doesn't have a resolution to fit the screen
This saddens me

It's not Ubuntu that supports (or doesn't support) the resolution, it's the video driver.

Try looking for drivers on the website of your video card manufacturer. What is the native/maximum resolution of your monitor aswell?

[fela]

I said I had a CINEMA display .. it is a WIDE SCREEN 24" HP running a 16x9 (or 10) basic aspect ratio, and no, that is not native resolution. It is what I came up with that gave me the most bang for my buck to include that all important "can I read the type in my eMail or from a web site."
I could go much higher in resolution, but then things become unreadable as the print gets smaller and smaller.

You should always use the native resolution on an LCD display.

If you want bigger text, give it a bigger DPI :)

[oldsoundguy]

You should always use the native resolution on an LCD display.

If you want bigger text, give it a bigger DPI :)

You need to spend some time learning about video. NATIVE resolution is DEFAULT resolution .. you do NOT have to use it if your card AND MONITOR support other resolutions.
This monitor has been running that non native resolution for over 2 years now.

[Jekshadow]

Laptop: 1280x800
Desktop: 1680x1050

[Trail]

27" :)

1920x1080.

[dr.daniel.l.jones]

Use dual monitors each in 1280x1024. Tried going with 1600x1200, but that is a bit too hard on these old eyes.

[Sean Moran]

I voted 1440x900 but it's actually 1400x1050 now, and thanks for the reminder. The monitor is a Philips Brilliance 107P and they say it's 17" but it onle measures 15" on my ruler, and to be honest, the 1600x1200 that I was squinting at from 750 odd mm away until I read this thread is getting a little hard to make out the words in at my age of 41 and a half. I'll stick with 1400 for now otherwise I can't always read these posts without zooming SeaMonkey to 120%.

[RandomJoe]

I finally caved to one of my long-running desires, and bought a 15" Macbook Pro. Also got a 24" Cinema display to go with it! Ooh, gorgeousness... Anyway, right now I'm running 1920x1200, which is generally sufficient. If I start doing more and need the screen space, I can lift the lid on the MBP which adds another 1440x900. That's running OS X though, Ubuntu is in a VMWare session... (I've caught the Mac bug! :lolflag: )

That's still wimpy compared to my desktop monster. Three 1280x1024 monitors for a total of 3840x1024, with an additional 720x480 when I fire up the projector. That last is usually just for movies, though. This machine runs Linux very nicely indeed!

You asked someone else "is that justified?" Why should I justify it? I wanted it, and I built it! :D But in fact all that space comes in very handy at times. When writing programs, or doing lots of research, I can have stuff spread all over the place and in full view. I hate switching windows! Just like if I was working with real books and paper, I'd be spreading it all across a table or desk, not stacking it up in front of me.

Some pics of the desktop from back when I built it:
http://okcforum.org/~martine/new-comp.html
Wow, that was three years ago... Time flies when having fun! The fourth monitor was later changed to a 720x480 projector in the living room.

[DivineTemplar]

Current desktop: 1280x1024.

To be fair though, this monitor is second hand and does a fantastic job. While I would have preferred wide screen, I really can't complain about this monitor.

[kimda]

1440x900 on a Samsung SyncMaster 923NW 19".

[Swagman]

1960 x 1200

Samsung 26" lcd

[fela]

You need to spend some time learning about video. NATIVE resolution is DEFAULT resolution .. you do NOT have to use it if your card AND MONITOR support other resolutions.
This monitor has been running that non native resolution for over 2 years now.

No, LCDs are by definition only supposed to run their native resolution - other resolutions will look distorted or blurry. CRTs are able to display all resolutions up to a certain point quite well.

Try upping your DPI preferences, you should really be using the native resolution. If you don't think it looks ugly with the strange resolution that you're running it at, then fine, but trust me it will look better at native.

[j7%<RmUg]

I can totally agree with you there. I just switched to a 17 inch monitor (my mum wants the extra 19 inch that I had, and I swapped the other 19 inch with someone for her 17 inch). The 17 inch actually has more pixels and so it looks much nicer as everything isn't big and ugly if you see what I mean, plus you can fit much more on the screen due to the fact that it's square (most things on a desktop require more vertical space than width).

Mines a 19"...

[MedianMajik]

hmmm, not seeing an option for 800x480

[fela]

hmmm, not seeing an option for 800x480

hmmm, there weren't quintillion slots available.

[rubenverweij]

2560x1024 here...