What size monitor do you use?

frieza · 03-04-2003, 07:53 PM

a 17" on my primary, 1024x768
14.4" laptop screen 1024x768
21" on an old 68k mac 640x480 (the computer itself can't support any higher)

moses · 03-04-2003, 10:06 PM

Work: 2x19" 1600x1200 (two screens, not xinerama) on my desk
Work: 2x21" 1600x1200 (two screens, not xinerama) x 5 in user room
Home: 1x19" 1280x1024 (can't afford high end video cards and can't stand refresh rates lower than 85 Hz) main slacker
Home: 1x17" 1280x1024 secondary slacker
Home: 1x15" 1024x768 flat panel on iMac

JStew · 03-05-2003, 05:24 AM

the same with processors... i have a 733mHz... I see no reason to buy anything more than 1gHz... anyone out there that can change my mind on this?

wapcaplet · 03-05-2003, 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JStew
the same with processors... i have a 733mHz... I see no reason to buy anything more than 1gHz... anyone out there that can change my mind on this?

Nah. If it suits your needs, then why get anything faster? If you're not doing highly CPU intensive stuff (like 3D graphics rendering, gaming, etc.), there's no need for it. Clock rate isn't everything, anyway. See, for example, how Intel had a monumental lapse in judgement with the introduction of the Pentium 4, sacrificing important stuff for clock speed (probably since they knew the uninitiated buyer would look only at clock speed and ignore the details).

moses · 03-05-2003, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JStew
the same with processors... i have a 733mHz... I see no reason to buy anything more than 1gHz... anyone out there that can change my mind on this?

At home I have two AMD XP 1700+ CPUs, and can barely get
everything I *need* from them. I run my work code on them because
the computers at work (Athlon 800, a bunch of various SPARCs)
just can't handle the code in any reasonable time. It takes about
ten days for my code to run to completion, and that's on the fastest
CPU I have access to, and it's only a small portion of what I'd like to
be able to do. If I had the money for something faster, I'd buy it in a
second.
For playing at home, my AMD K6-2 500s were just fine.

JStew · 03-05-2003, 12:15 PM

what kind of code you running? you have a rendering farm?

rose_bud4201 · 03-15-2003, 09:32 PM

jeepers creepers...who had the "Higher" monitors??! *jealousy*
I've got a flatscreen 17", CRT 17", and 13" laptop...all at 1024x768

...and occasionally 1280x1024 for gaming ;-}

doublefailure · 03-15-2003, 11:05 PM

i've been using 1024*8-- with 21'
i tried 1280*1024 once, font looked cheesy when it's bigger than 12 (i prefer helvetica)

which fonts do u guys use with 1280*-- or above?
i've seen 75dpi and 100dpi fonts in x, maybe i need to change that to 100dpi?

thanks

moses · 03-18-2003, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by JStew
what kind of code you running? you have a rendering farm?

No, I mostly run mathematical models of heat transfer. The code
takes 100% CPU on everything I've been able to throw at it.
I also do image processing on Mars images, most of which are over
20 MB before and well over 2GB after processing (calibration,
mosaics, etc). The data processing is more memory than CPU
intensive, but when one multiplies a few 20 MB matrices, it starts to
get CPU intensive as well (especially when you're doing it in 32
bits). . .

Timothy Miller · 03-18-2003, 01:22 PM

18" LCD, 1280x1024
17" CRT, 1024x768
15" LCD Laptop, 1024x768
13.3" LCD Laptop, 1024x768

onurb · 03-18-2003, 01:28 PM

17" CRT 1024 x 768 ( on a AMD 1700+, Mandrake 9.0 )
15" CRT 800 x 600 ( on a P1, VectorLinux 3.2 )

Phonics3k · 03-19-2003, 06:40 AM

LG 17" 1024x768
Benq FP767 LCD 17" 1024x768

They both go to 1280@1024 but thats abit small if u ask me.