Why do people use 1280x1024?
 

1280x960 is the correct 4:3 ratio, so why do so many people use 1280x1024 res? I tried that out, and all the people in pictures looked short and fat. Is there any reason for using a 4:3.2 ratio res?

:confused:

I use 1280 x 1024 and it looks perfect on my screen.
I've got a Toshiba laptop (fairly new one) with a 15" screen and a 32mb Geforce4 video card in it, and my options are:
800 x 600
1024 x 768
1280 x 1024
1600 x 1200

Works good for me.

When I switched to 1280x960 I couldn't make my screen big enough (on the horizontal) to fill my monitor.

Huh, I've used 1280x1024 for a couple years now and haven't noticed. The ratio is very close though: 4:3.2. Maybe because in most games there isn't an option for 1280x960, 1280x1024 just became accepted?

1400 x 1050 is my desktop setting.. messes up the all the font settings for most pages... dumb ATI thing

I think basically because it's accepted truthfully.

I run 1600x1200 though, so wall papers generally aren't made for me :(

Yep gotta 20" Flatscreen at work and 1280x1024 is the only setting that works right. It screws the pixelation up on any other setting.

I prefer 1028x768 for normal stuff though (My mincie's ain't too good)

PS: Non-Cockney's take note Mince Pies = Eyes

Odd. I just tried 1280 x 1024, and it does squash the images. No way my eyes can use a res that small, though. 1024 x 768 for me.

I use 1280 x 1024, and I havn't noticed any discrepency in proportion. Maybe I should try taking a picture of a square and see if it comes out that way on my comp.

im on 800x600.... eek

I run 1600x1200 but used to run 1280x1024. I tried 1280x960 hearing that it was the "correct" ratio, but, to me, THAT caused squishy images.

i dont know, just feels right

I also use 1600x1200 and haven't noticed any problems with pictures....I just try to get as much information on the screen at one time so I have less scrolling around to do...

FROM: GUI Portal, http://www.guiportal.com/articles/1280x1024.html

I'm running 1280x1024. I used to have a 960 setting but it's not there anymore.

Suppose you set your screen to 1280x960 and then stretch it using your monitor settings?

I use it because it gives me more room, but not so much that things are too small (like 1600x1200)

cause my LCD native resolution is 1280x1024, doesn't look as good in any other res

I'm probably an odd ball... i use 1152x864... fits just right on my 17" monitor.... non of the other resolutions are satisfying to the eye... lower than that and its just too big, higher than that and everything is too small to read... So i don't see how people can keep those high resolutions without destroying their eyes, unless they are using like a 21" monitor :D

i use 1280*1024 and it fits right on my 17" LCD screen
the measurements for my screen is 13.25" by 10.75" which comes out to about 1.232 so in saying that 1280*1024 should be the resolutionthat my monitor runs, everything else just looks like shit

well let me show an example picture to you guys soon, I will make a big circle on one screen and put it on the other and take a picture.

My 20" LCD runs at 1600x1200 and my 18" runs at 1280x1024

I will put a back ground of a circle, and you guys judge :)

I just have to wait a couple of days, cause my friend is using my 18" lcd.

this is interesting.. i run 1280*1024 but i havent noticed many differences when i use other computers. maybe they're all at 1280*1024 as well.

It's kind of like putting a lift on your truck. It's bigger.

I'm all about 1024 x 768.

resolutions I use...
15": 1024x768
17": 1152x864
21": 1600x1200

I'd go higher, but if you go to giht, the refresh rate will give you headaches.

i use either 1400x1050 or 1600x1200 unless i'm feeling crazy and use the 2k modes.

but i'd use 1280x1024 over the others just for the screen space, im not worried about drawing perfectly round circles, just about fitting all those windows on;)

if the aspect ratio is wrong use an image viewer that corrects it.

It just looks right on mine.. 1280x960 looks squashed to me. Maybe its just a difference in monitors

Follow on from my earlier:

NEC 2010 Flatscreen - Doesn't look right on anything but 1280x1024.

Also had similar exp. on Eizo 17" flatscreens, they have to be on one specific res. to look right.

Specific to flatscreens? I wonder?

I do I do

i have a 19" monitor. i use it because it is the highest resolution i can use and still read the screen. i never gave aspect ratio a thought.

I use 1600 x 1200 now, but when I did use 1280, I had the height at 1024. I am not sure why that setting was ever an option because now that I think about it, circles always used to have kind of an oval shape for me. After a while, your eyes compensate. So, I guess I used it just to sqeeze a few more pixels on the screen.

1280x960. I've never liked nor understood 1280x1024.

it depends on your monitor......

like many of you, it's my monitor's native resolution - everything else looks like hell. my screen measures 13 3/8 x 10 5/8 which is 1.259 ratio

eh, i just adjust the settings on the monitor and nothing looks funky.. i wont run lower than 1280x1024 anymore... except on that old monitor that dont support it ;)

So, what the hell does 1152x864 make me?

Always (since my graphic card could output it) used 1280x960...

For a 17" screen the resolution is good for me.... I prefer to keep lots of obects on my desktop...and have many windows open at what would be an optimal size for each so as to have most things on those screens visible without scrolling. 1280 X 1024 is the best ratio for me.

Had I a 19" screen, id go higher...but higher on a 17" screen just makes things too tiny and hard to read.

I run a 17" screen at 1152x864. Works well for me. I play games at 1024x768, because this monitor isn't flickerless at higher resolutions, and most games I play don't support 1152x864.

I'm running a Viewsonic g810, 21" Graphics monitor. 1280x1024 is the only one things look 'right' in.

1280x1024 is the default setting on my laptopas well. Alienware Area 51M everything seems fine. I also run it on my LCD monitor I have hooked up as well.

Most of the time I'm working in an IDE like Visual Studio or working mainly with text/XML docs/SQL queries. I want as much screen-estate as I can get and still read it. 1280X1024 seems to fit that bill right now.

On my home machine I think I'm running 1024x768 but my desk & chair is an ergonomics nightmare.

I have an Acer AL922 19" TFT fed by a slow-azz 32mb obsolete end-of-lifed Diamond Viper card.

I tried 12x10 and screen redraw became slooooooow. I dropped down to 1152x864 and have been much happier. I refuse to throttle back to 16-bit.