Any particular reason why 1024 x 768 is the default screen resolution?
 

I've always liked 800 x 600 because text is a lot easier on the eyes. Any reason why 1024 x 768 is pretty much the default now?

Just curious.

How is it easier on the eyes?

It's the default now because monitors aren't all 15'' anymore.

It's easier because the font and everything is bigger.

It would be understandable if you are using a tv set as a computer monitor. Otherwise you must have poor eyesight to prefer 800x600px over anything higher (no offence.)

And yeah, how big is your monitor?

It's about 15 inches.

My eyesight is good, but I've been using 800 x 600 for like 10 years now, and today I was using a 1024 x 768 and my eyes killed me after 2 hours of use.

You can turn your resolution up, and then also the DPI setting to make the fonts a little bigger.

I'm now usually at 1280x960, and I really don't see any problem with anything being hard to read. And this is with the DPI setting at it's default (96 I think) My monitor is a 17" Flat CRT.

The Refresh rate is usually another facter in making things easier on the eyes. Anything above 85Hz looks alot nicer than 60Hz. Though your monitor has to support those of course.

If I use 800x600, I can have 150Hz, which is dreamy.

You can't do crap at 800x600. The cursor takes up half the screen. I can grudgingly work in 1024x768 (My Laptop's there), but I prefer 1280x1024 or 2560x1024. For Coding and Graphics work, Dual Monitors are irreplacable.

Man, I cannot see how you can get anything done in 800x600. You can fit like what, five lines of text on the screen before having to scroll down.

My laptop has a 14.1" screen and uses 1400x1050 resolution and that was a step down from the 1600x1200 {or whatever it was} resolution that my previous laptop with a 15" screen used. I was sad when I had to go down to 1400x1050. And I'm sad that my monitors on my desk at work only support 1280x1024 and that my monitor on my home PC only supports 1280x1024. Man I don't like scrolling.

I use 800x600 on my old laptop (which has been relegated to the basement to connect to my Yamaha keyboard), and I find it quite fustrating to use. I'm much more comfortable at 1280x1024 (on my 19" LCD) or 1680x1050 (on my 15.4" laptop). Having more screen space is a definite plus, and if I can't read a webpage I can just CTRL+ to increase the font size. Or I could just put on my glasses -_-;

I use a 17" monitor and I am using 1152x864 resolution. Everything is just right at this res. I don't see how anyone can still be using 800x600 anymore unless you have a monitor that's less than 15", which I doubt anyone actually still has these days. 800x600's text is way too huge even at 15". I used 1024x768 when I had one.

I like high resolutions to a point, but I think there's a point at which they can get TOO high (considering that today's operating systems still don't have particularly graceful scaling mechanisms). Once OS X 10.5 Leopard comes out with Quartz 2D Extreme and live, resolution-independent UI scaling, then I think I'll be ready to move farther up the resolution chain. I believe Vista will be offering similar features whenever it arrives.

I find anything over about 100 - 116dpi in a screen too small for my taste. I'd say the current 1440 x 900 screen in the MacBook Pro is the sweet spot for a 15.4" widescreen LCD. That's about 110dpi, which is comfortable for me.

But 800 x 600? Jesus, you can't even DO anything on a screen that small. What is this, 1998? I'd kill myself. Then again, I do a lot of screen-consuming tasks. It's about 1680 x 1050 until I'm really comfortable doing a lot of Final Cut Pro editing, for instance. You want to have decently sized video previews, and still have enough room for a timeline and file bin and such. And working with images in Photoshop, even 1024 x 768 is too small once you've got all your palettes on the screen.

To the OP: It occurs to me you might have a really old CRT monitor, which might only be running 60Hz when you switch to 1024 x 768, and have a higher refresh rate when you're using 800 x 600. That would be the real reason for eye-strain. I'd imagine if you were using a 15" LCD at 1024 x 768 you'd not experience the same problems.

I can figure out who I care less for, people who use resolutions smaller than 1024x768 (and even I don't really care about that, but I use 1280x1024,) or people who use 56k.

Seriously, just fucking spend $100, and get a new decent monitor that doesn't suck, and can do 1280x1024 at 60Hz.

Ooh! Where can I get a monitor that doesn't suck for $100!?

Samsung Syncmaster 793MB. It's the monitor I use, and it's 17", has a max res of 1280x1024, and runs it in 60Hz. =\

Chances are it's not the resolution that's killing you, it's the refresh rate. Likely what you're seeing is that because either your video card or monitor suck, when you boost up to 1024x768, your refresh rate is getting kicked down to 60Hz instead of something better, like 85Hz. Running it on 60Hz when you're used to higher is so hard on the eyes.

Plus the 793MB's got arguably the best contrast I've ever seen in any CRT. I love mine. Even prefer it to my 17" Trinitron G200, even though the Trinitron can do 1600x1200@85Hz.

I actually dislike CRT's in general these days. I don't game enough to care about the response times (and when I do, current 16ms LCD tech is good enough for me) and I much prefer the space saving nature of LCDs. Plus, the fact that I don't have to pay for a screen that can do a high enough refresh rate at the resolutions I want is nice. And the fact that I can buy widescreen. Fuck 4:3, 16:10 is where it's at, yo.

Yes but, running games at any resolution other than the native one will cause some weird scaling effects on LCDs. With older games, this can be a large pain in the ass. You could always try to play in windowed mode, but who does that these days?

Especially when you consider that running a game in windowed mode take more processing power than running it in full-screen. WHY this is, I have no clue.

Simple. Because Windows is using processing power to show other stuff, not just your game.

You know, I've never understood the complaining about a monitor at 60hz. I've never had one that had a higher refresh rate and I've never had problems sitting infront of them for 8+ hours a day. =\

Not everyone responds to refresh rates the same way. I used to be find with 60Hz all the time, but as I've gotten older the flicker has gotten to me more and more. Now I prefer to use CRTs at refresh raters at 75Hz or above. With LCDs, of course, it doesn't matter. There's never any flicker at ANY refresh rate.

What defines "default" resolution, anyways? CRT monitors can usually display all sorts of screen resolutions just fine, the bigger the screen, the higher the resolution. And LCDs have their typical native resolution, which is most likely even higher than 1024x786.

So what exactly makes 1024x786 "the new default resolution"?

Most people I know (including me) use higher resolutions than that.

It's the native resolution on 15" LCD monitors and generally the first step up from 800x600 that people will switch to.

I think it's also the resolution that Windows XP defaults to, isn't it (or at least the one I'm most familiar with using while working in computer labs or on public computers)?

The computers at work, I turned a couple up to 1280x1024 (their native), and was told to put them back on 1024x768 =\

It's sad to see that people are actually stupid enough to run LCDs at non-native resolutions for work. Kinda defeats the purpose of getting such a display in the first place. Aside from the obvious saving of space.

You know, I did the same thing at work a few times before (they are using those huge 22" CRT monitors too.) Nearly all of the people that use them on a daily basis would tell me to switch it back to 800x600 or 1024x768. But I think I convinced at least one to upgrade to 1152x864 =p.

I think it's only at 1024x768 because most people don't buy monitors above 17". Really good defaults for each size would be (balanced between resolution and ease of reading):
14" 640x480
15" 800x600
17" 1024x768
18" 1152x864
19" 1280x1024
21" 1600x1200
22" 2048x1536
23"+ Anything at or beyond this on a PC monitor is almost certainly in widescreen resoultions a or above 1920x1200)

That's how you should assess things. Anyone who runs at 800x600 on a 19" or above is really wasting the potential of their monitor. And usually I try to go for the highest resolution I can get 85Hz on (on a CRT, but considering I have an LCD now, why hold back? I pumped my resolution up to 1440x900 and it's easy on the eyes and gives me a lot of work space).

well I've been following this thread and I decide to try to go higher then 1024x768. I tried 1280x1024 and really I don't like that, the text is SO small!! but from the reply of sega, I have a 18" monitor so I guessed
that the perfect resolution should be between 1024x768 and 1280x1024, I tried 1152x864 and really I think it's perfect XD so I guess I'll stay with that ^^ ( I may even try that in game if my comp can XD)

1280x1024 on a 19" LCD produces small text for me, and even smaller on a 17" hence why I'd rather get a 19" even though you get the same resolution. Sure it's finer on a 17" but for people doing anything with text, I think it's a bad idea. Probably is good for gaming though.

Having said that I have a 19" set at 1280x1024 and with 120dpi fonts. Sure everything looks big but I don't want to be inches away from the screen just to read the damn text. And dual monitors for the productivity. At work I sometimes work on workstations having 4 or more displays with 1600x1200 on each :)

You can make the text bigger no matter what resolution you are using.

It may look fugly though.

I use a 17" at 1280x1024, and I don't have any problems with text or anything. And yes, I'm using it at the default DPI fontsize.

I don't know what your problems are, guys. You must have really bad eyes, or something.

It is because your eyes get used to the particular refresh rate so you don't notice that it is uncomfortable. However, once you do begin to use a higher refresh rate, for instance 85Hz, then return to 60Hz, your eyes will then notice the difference.

Personally I prefer higher resolutions because of the sheer workspace available. (Though whenever I step up a resolution, it eventually feels small.) At the moment it's running 1600x1200 at 75Hz. The computers used in my school are capped at 800x600 and isn't user changeable. Though the refresh rates are fine, the workspace is far too small to be efficient.

They probably can't stand watching a screen at 1280x1024 at below 85Hz. Last time I checked, most 17" CRT screens can't pull 1280x1024 at a refresh rate above 60-66Hz, which if they're like me, would strain their eyes to the point of pain.

I think it's just a case of not everyone being as lucky as me {in that I am farsighted}. Whenever someone is looking at my laptop screen {14.1" with 1400 x 1050 resolution}, they will always make a comment to the effect of "how can you see that?" I like being able to sit five feet from my laptop screen and still read the text on it. I do this in the evenings when I'm sitting on my couch watching tv or playing video games, while my laptop is turned on with an realtime updating MLB scoreboard going. Thank you, farsightedness!

I know some public libarary that are still on 640x480 and they're not 14 inches monitor. @_@

Generally government and business monitors tend to go for the lowest supported resolution by the OS. It's stupid, the highest resolution I've seen at a library was 800x600 on a 15" LCD, even though it probably wasn't even the native resolution.
Why buy LCDs when you're not going to run them at their native resolution?

Amen to that. Saving space doesn't count for crap when your display is unreadable because of tearing.

I have users who have 19" LCDs running 800 x 600. This is not a joke. They had been using 15" LCDs, then we moved their department into a new building and one of the people who already worked there went by their area and was like "LOL how do you people use those postage stamp sized monitors, get them to order you some 19" ones". So the right person approved the purchase and I ordered them. Immediately had to lower the resolution to 800 x 600. I was saddened greatly by this, especially considering that my monitors in my office are only 17".

The only upside to using lower resolutions on LCDs is now they scale better (due to more pixels and blending).
But I have problem: I use a widescreen LCD and when I try to use 4:3 resolutions (in fullscreen programs that don't support widescreen), it stretches them to 16:10, I wish I could find a way (other than PowerStrip) to easily and quickly force 4:3 for gaming and such.

You can set some of them to 4:3 on the monitor. For example, I can set mine to 4:3, 16:9, or 1:1.

So yeah, I'm one of those using a 17" monitor with a resolution of 1280x1024. Is that bad for the monitor? Because it looks fine to me.

Then again, my dad is one of those people who has the 19" monitor but has a resolution of 1024x768....yeah should be switched, but he likes the large size of the monitor for watching movies, etc.

If the monitor supports it, then there's nothing wrong with setting it to 1280x1024.

I still don't see how people find 60Hz so bad. But I'm a person who has been using computers since monochrome displays.

It depends on the person, I think. I used to be fine with 60Hz on CRTs... for a long time actually. As I got older though, it started to irritate my eyes, to the point where I went down from 1600 x 1200 on my 17" CRT at 60Hz (which I now find too small, honestly) to 1280 x 960 (none of this 5:4 nonsense) at 85Hz which I find much more comfortable.

But like I said, with LCDs 60Hz obviously isn't a problem. And considering that my PC is on just about never (now that my damn Radeon 9700 seems to be fried), I'm looking at LCDs most of the live-long day. As soon as I have money, I'm re-buying myself a 20" widescreen LCD (had to sell my Dell for cash... being a college student sucks).

Agreed. Take my Trinitron G200. 1280x1024x60 is perfect. 1280x1024x75 and 1280x1024x85 I can detect flicker and it hurts my eyes.

i actually like 1152x864 a lot. i used to have my 17" crt at 800x600 for a LONG time. people would come into my room and switch it to 1024 because they thought my computer had defaulted to 800x600 on accident. then i switched to 1024, then to 1280, but 1280's refresh rate was 60hz, so 1152 had a refresh of 75, which is better on my eyes.

on another note, i really hate 800x600 now.

Meh, I used to think the same a few days ago. Then I noticed that my eyes were starting to hurt a bit when I looked at the monitor for a long time, so I decided to up the refresh rate. But whoops, my monitor (which is probably going to die in a few months :() doesn't support anything above 60Hz at 1280x1024. I tried 1280x800 for a few days, but I couldn't stand the vertical stretching so I put it down to 1158x864 and haven't gone back since. <3

You said your monitor's going to die? What symptoms is it exhibiting?
Generally setting the screen to an unsupported resolution will not damage it, unless you switch to it frequently.

I've noticed I like using widescreen much more than 4:3, even when I had a 4:3 CRT monitor, I'd run it at 1280x768 (actually that's because it was the highest resolution it could pull at 85Hz). But on a real widescreen LCD, 1440x900 looks incredibly detailed and smooth.

Red lines whenever there's something against a white background after it wakes up. It fades after a few minutes, but it's always there.

Possible, but my monitor (before it died) made a 'pop' every so often when staring up, during use and shutting down. If you hear a popping noise, chances are it's close to dying. Otherwise it could just be your picture is screwed up (much like dead pixels on a LCD), hopefully it's just a benign annoyance.

well my monitor is always at 60hz and I find it really ok, I don,t see anything wrong with it, but reading this thread, I tried to put to 85hx (which is the maximum my monitor support) and at first, i had so much trouble to clearing see thing, my eye really wasn't used to this, but after 1-2 days it was ok. But I change back to 60hz mainly because my monitor is kind of old and after 2-3 days of being in 85hz it started to do a really shrill(?) sound, it was unbearable and I found out that it was the 85hz that caused this, so I turn it down. And yes when I turn it down to 60hz again I notice the difference, but for me it doesn't change anything >.>