PDA

View Full Version : Why is 1280x1024 so popular?



Dixius99
October 29th, 2006, 09:21 PM
After installing the ATI driver for my video card, one of the resolutions available was 1280x1024, which I would hazard to say is one of the more popular resolutions people use.

I'm wondering, though, why is 1280x1024 so popular. It's the only "standard" resolution with a 5x4 aspect ratio, instead of 4x3 aspect ratios, such as:

640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1600x1200


Almost all CRT monitors have a 4x3 aspect ratio, while many LCD monitors have a 5x4 ratio. Is 1280x1024 popular because of LCDs?

To maintain the native aspect ratio on a CRT, and to avoid distortion, shouldn't most users actually be running 1280x960?

user1397
October 29th, 2006, 09:24 PM
After installing the ATI driver for my video card, one of the resolutions available was 1280x1024, which I would hazard to say is one of the more popular resolutions people use.

I'm wondering, though, why is 1280x1024 so popular. It's the only "standard" resolution with a 5x4 aspect ratio, instead of 4x3 aspect ratios, such as:
640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1600x1200Almost all CRT monitors have a 4x3 aspect ratio, while many LCD monitors have a 5x4 ratio. Is 1280x1024 popular because of LCDs?

To maintain the native aspect ratio on a CRT, and to avoid distortion, shouldn't most users actually be running 1280x960?my 17" CRT looks fine with my 1280X1024 resolution.

Demio
October 29th, 2006, 09:26 PM
My LCD's default resolution is 1280x1024. Actually it doesn't support anything higher than that.

ComplexNumber
October 29th, 2006, 09:33 PM
i use 1024x768 because it seems to look best on my system.

bonzodog
October 29th, 2006, 09:47 PM
I use 1280 x 1024 simply because that is the optimal operating resolution for my LCD.

Virak
October 29th, 2006, 10:07 PM
I use it because it's the highest resolution my monitor is capable of.

Dual Cortex
October 29th, 2006, 10:31 PM
Same as above.

_simon_
October 29th, 2006, 10:36 PM
Yep same as above, it's the highest resolution my 19" LCD will go to.

maagimies
October 29th, 2006, 10:43 PM
I used 1280x1024 with my CRT monitor until I realised how stretched everything actually was, a 100x100 wasn't square. o_O (Far from it)
I would have had to adjust the monitor to make the width smaller, but that would have but black space on both sides.
With 1280x960 I can utilise my whole screenspace, without things distorting :D
ehm, to answer the question of this thread: maybe they don't just care?

ComplexNumber
October 29th, 2006, 10:48 PM
I used 1280x1024 with my CRT monitor until I realised how stretched everything actually was, a 100x100 wasn't square. o_O (Far from it)
I would have had to adjust the monitor to make the width smaller, but that would have but black space on both sides.
With 1280x960 I can utilise my whole screenspace, without things distorting :D
ehm, to answer the question of this thread: maybe they don't just care?
so maybe 1024x768(and other 4x3) fit in more closely to the dimension of a typical monitor.

shining
October 29th, 2006, 10:53 PM
After installing the ATI driver for my video card, one of the resolutions available was 1280x1024, which I would hazard to say is one of the more popular resolutions people use.

I'm wondering, though, why is 1280x1024 so popular. It's the only "standard" resolution with a 5x4 aspect ratio, instead of 4x3 aspect ratios, such as:

640x480
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1600x1200


Almost all CRT monitors have a 4x3 aspect ratio, while many LCD monitors have a 5x4 ratio. Is 1280x1024 popular because of LCDs?

To maintain the native aspect ratio on a CRT, and to avoid distortion, shouldn't most users actually be running 1280x960?

I only noticed this recently, this is soooo retarded.
My crt monitor has a 4x3 physical ratio, though I have always used 1280x1024 since the beginning. When I noticed it, I switched to 1280x960, but it looked a bit odd.
I checked my manual, and it's written 1280x1024 is the recommended / native resolution. WTF ??!! That's the most retarded thing ever, but I still switched back to 1280x1024 for this reason.

Then I checked a LCD monitor which is also at 1280x1024, and the physical size does have a 5x4 ratio.
It's still really stupid to not use the same ratio everywhere, but the LCD are at least less stupid than my CRT monitor with a 4x3 ratio and a 5x4 resolution.

The native resolution is much more important for LCD than for CRT. With LCD, anything but the native resolution looks totally blurred. So it's not like you have the choice. And as I said, the resolution ratio match the size ratio on my LCD.

maagimies
October 29th, 2006, 10:53 PM
so maybe 1024x768(and other 4x3) fit in more closely to the dimension of a typical monitor.I think so, almost every CRT monitor I've come across has 4x3 ratio.

My crt monitor has a 4x3 physical ratio, though I have always used 1280x1024 since the beginning. When I noticed it, I switched to 1280x960, but it looked a bit odd.
I checked my manual, and it's written 1280x1024 is the recommended / native resolution. WTF ??!! That's the most retarded thing ever, but I still switched back to 1280x1024 for this reason.It looked odd in what way? Did it flicker or what? :F

picpak
October 29th, 2006, 10:53 PM
I used 832x624 for a while, but some programs went off the screen.

I use 1024x768 with the fonts cranked up, it works good.

shining
October 29th, 2006, 11:00 PM
I think so, almost every CRT monitor I've come across has 4x3 ratio.

Mine is indeed 4x3, however they recommend a 5x4 resolution. What the hell?

maagimies
October 29th, 2006, 11:01 PM
Mine is indeed 4x3, however they recommend a 5x4 resolution. What the hell?Mushrooms dude, it's all because of inappropriate use of mushrooms.
Thats the best explanation I have :D

mips
October 29th, 2006, 11:09 PM
Might be because you get a bit more desktop real-estate ?

I run 1600x1200 though.

prizrak
October 30th, 2006, 12:28 AM
1280x1024 is the native resolution of most 17inch LCD. They also happen to be the most popular on the market as they only cost about $150 (US) and are pretty nice to work on.

shining
October 30th, 2006, 12:38 AM
I believe none of the comments answer the original question. But well, I was wondering the same a while ago, and didn't find any answer back then. So it's apparently not easy.

Edit: no, sorry, two users are actually not totally off topic: maagimies and ComplexNumber. All the others are.

Bezmotivnik
October 30th, 2006, 12:43 AM
Is 1280x1024 popular because of LCDs?
Yes.

If you have an LCD monitor, you are pretty much stuck with the "native" (maximum) resolution, because LCD monitors do not scale like CRTs. If you use a smaller resolution, it looks awful due to the gritty fonts and shattered detail. You can tweak that a bit, but never enough.

I do not like this resolution as it's too large of a screen relative to the typical website. It's a waste, but I have to use this resolution or go blind trying to read mangled fonts. :(

shining
October 30th, 2006, 12:45 AM
It looked odd in what way? Did it flicker or what? :F

Yes, kind of. It seemed to flicker a bit more at 1280x960 than at 1280x1024.
But I do wonder what they exactly mean by native resolution for CRT (and LCD also).

shining
October 30th, 2006, 12:48 AM
Yes.

If you have an LCD monitor, you are pretty much stuck with the "native" (maximum) resolution, because LCD monitors do not scale like CRTs. If you use a smaller resolution, it looks awful due to the gritty fonts and shattered detail. You can tweak that a bit, but never enough.

I do not like this resolution as it's too large of a screen relative to the typical website. It's a waste, but I have to use this resolution or go blind trying to read mangled fonts. :(

This doesn't explain:
1) why LCD use a 5x4 ratio instead of 4x3
2) why CRT, which are 4x3, would use a 5x4 resolution just because LCD use them (that seems utterly stupid)

SunnyRabbiera
October 30th, 2006, 01:01 AM
I dunno I have always been a fan of 1024x768, anything higher then that is too small for me even on a flat panel.
800x600 varies, sometimes I like the resolution on my windows machine but its not that good on linux

denad
October 30th, 2006, 01:13 AM
Im running 1920 x 1440 right now (but only because of this thread) ;) Usally I run 1600 x 1200. I hate websites made for 1024x768 or whatever it is, I cant use all my space...

mips
October 30th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Almost all CRT monitors have a 4x3 aspect ratio, while many LCD monitors have a 5x4 ratio. Is 1280x1024 popular because of LCDs?

To maintain the native aspect ratio on a CRT, and to avoid distortion, shouldn't most users actually be running 1280x960?

I think it stems from ignorance, only a few LCD's have a 5:4 aspect ratio (16" 17" 18.1" 19" come to mind). People don't know any better or usually just use the highest res they can get out of their monitor. Things do look a bit stretched at 1280x1024 on a CRT.

You are correct on the 1280x960 though, something people should add to their xorg.conf files.

http://www.qg.fi/screeninformation.html

mips
October 30th, 2006, 01:26 AM
This doesn't explain:
1) why LCD use a 5x4 ratio instead of 4x3
2) why CRT, which are 4x3, would use a 5x4 resolution just because LCD use them (that seems utterly stupid)

1. I suspect this has to do with the actual pixel geometry. Ideally the pixels would be square. Should you manufacture a monitor aimed at the consumers that still work in old fashioned diagonal inches you are going to end up in a 5:4 resolution for some sizes of displays. Then theres also the conflict between broadcasting standards and computer stnadards, they don't gel well. Just look at the widescreen LCD's they are actually 16:10 except for the 13.3incher.

2. Agree, stupidity or ignorance.

wmcbrine
October 31st, 2006, 02:58 AM
The 1280x1024 resolution appears to predate the widespread use of LCDs. Here's what Wikipedia says:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SXGA

Still pretty mysterious.

IYY
October 31st, 2006, 06:41 AM
1152x864 is the most comfortable resolution for me on most monitors. 1280x1024 if it's a good monitor. Anything higher is just too much for me.

firenewt
October 31st, 2006, 06:58 AM
When you are recommended the 5:4 resolution on a CRT, it means it's not a good CRT and the manufacturer doesn't really care that it's stretched. If your monitor runs optimally at 1280x1024, I would use it if I were you, even a CRT. Shrink the screen to the correct ratio. Imo, a warped ratio is worse than a bit of empty space on the sides.

Btw, if your monitor flickers at 1280x960, you need to set the modelines for a higher refreshrate at that resolution. Just don't go above what your monitor can handle
I used to run this CRT monitor which went up to 1600x1200, and I usually ran it at 1280x960 or even 1200x900. But I did have to set the modelines in the X config.

vixenk
October 31st, 2006, 07:50 AM
I used 1280x1024 with my CRT monitor until I realised how stretched everything actually was, a 100x100 wasn't square. o_O (Far from it)

This is why I use 1280x1024 on my 17" CRT. A 100x100 isn't square whenever I use 1024x768, and it looks horrible. I have no idea why. It might have something to do with the fact it's a relatively new flatscreen. The listed max is 1600x1200. *shrugs*

chaosgeisterchen
October 31st, 2006, 08:41 AM
Most people will simply use it because it fits their displays the best. I am awaiting 1600x1200.

rocknrolf77
October 31st, 2006, 09:17 AM
Sitting on a 1280x1024 lcd now. Hating it. Looking forward to coming back home to my 19" crt with 1600x1200. And it's far to small I think for photo editing. Want to have an idea of how my pics will look like in bigger size.

chaosgeisterchen
October 31st, 2006, 09:31 AM
1600x1200 will give you a very dense resolution.

I hope my 20,1" TFT will also have a higher density than my momentary 19" TFT (1280x1024).

klerfayt
October 31st, 2006, 10:52 AM
Are you sure that if crt monitor highest resolution is 1280x1024 that it really is 4:3 and not 5:4; have you checked theirs physical dimensions?
I would expect that monitor manufacturer knows what they are doing?

nbound
October 31st, 2006, 12:59 PM
1280x1024 is my LCD's native res :)

frup
October 31st, 2006, 01:10 PM
I don't understand why at least 20% of people use anything under 1280*"*". That's really sad :( I'm stuck on 1024*768 now. That's because I'm stuck using a 32mb GFX card and haven't bothered to try editing xorg.conf. I was using 1600*1200 until my main computer borked.

The sad thing is most people using low resolutions do so because the people who sell them computers sell them shyte and they are stupid. Any computer above a pentium 3 or a Duron should be able to handle more than 1024*768 which is really beginning to hurt my eyes with all its pixelation.

Hopefully i can fix my main computer in time for Feisty Fawn.

nbound
October 31st, 2006, 01:13 PM
The only time i use anything lower is on my laptop which runs 1280x768 (widescreen)... so thats not that bad... occasionally ill fire up my 386... 320x240 anyone ? :p (yeah it does run higher resolutions, thats just default for most things in DOS)

djsroknrol
October 31st, 2006, 01:17 PM
I like the huge work area on my compy with 1280 x 1024....;)

viraptor
October 31st, 2006, 01:36 PM
Off-topic, but...
Does anyone know how to check active resolution? Without trying to change it? Without checking size of screenshot, browsing Xorg.log, or this kind of things?
Is there a utility that will tell your screens resolutions? I haven't needed it ever yet, but now it just hit me, that I wouldn't know how to officially check that :)

nbound
October 31st, 2006, 01:38 PM
Most modern monitors will tell u current res and refresh rate from their menu :)

shining
October 31st, 2006, 01:42 PM
Off-topic, but...
Does anyone know how to check active resolution? Without trying to change it? Without checking size of screenshot, browsing Xorg.log, or this kind of things?
Is there a utility that will tell your screens resolutions? I haven't needed it ever yet, but now it just hit me, that I wouldn't know how to officially check that :)

Try xrandr or xvidtune.

shining
October 31st, 2006, 01:48 PM
Are you sure that if crt monitor highest resolution is 1280x1024 that it really is 4:3 and not 5:4; have you checked theirs physical dimensions?


That's what the original poster said, that most crt are 4:3, and most lcd are 5:4
I indeed have one crt and one lcd, both recommending 1280x1024
The crt has a 4:3 physical ratio, and the lcd has a 5:4 one.
Note that 1280x1024 isn't the highest resolution, it's the recommended one. It can run at 1600x1200, but the refresh rate is too low.



I would expect that monitor manufacturer knows what they are doing?

Actually, that's the whole point of this thread, getting the reasons / explanations of the monitor manufacturers.
It's just that apparently nobody here knows :)

MedivhX
October 31st, 2006, 02:25 PM
I have 17" with resolution 1024x768, but my monitor is capable of 1600x1200 resolution.

shining
October 31st, 2006, 02:43 PM
By saying a 5x4 resolution (1280x1024) is wrong for a 4x3 crt, don't we assume that the pixels are square?
What if they were not square, but had a (5/4) x (4/3) ratio :d

Rhapsody
October 31st, 2006, 03:09 PM
The story I always heard about the popularity of 1280x1024 was the one quoted near the bottom of the Wikipedia SXGA article.


Some believe its use began back in the mid-1980s, as an upgrade from XGA 1024×768. At the time, memory was extremely expensive. Using 1280×1024 at 8-bit color depth allowed 1.25 MiB of video RAM usage, fitting nicely with available RAM chip sizes.

I'm currently using 1024x768, since I'm on a 17" CRT and any higher resolution gives me eyestrain due to the low refresh rate. I'll probably go with LCD with my next PC, though I'll likely try to find one with a proper 4:3 native resolution.

paul cooke
October 31st, 2006, 06:46 PM
I only noticed this recently, this is soooo retarded.
My crt monitor has a 4x3 physical ratio, though I have always used 1280x1024 since the beginning. When I noticed it, I switched to 1280x960, but it looked a bit odd.
I checked my manual, and it's written 1280x1024 is the recommended / native resolution. WTF ??!! That's the most retarded thing ever, but I still switched back to 1280x1024 for this reason.

the pixels are NOT square... it depends on what pattern they're using of the RGB phospors as to exactly what the height / width ratio is gonna be.