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 =\