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

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by RacinReaver

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Merv Burger

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).

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?