From someone that doesn't know any better, can you tell me the advantages of the additional room? Isn't everything teeny tiny?

1280 X 1024

my res is funky 1400x1050 but o man is it clear

Ms. X... just try changing your resolution to 1024, one step up from 800...
See the difference it makes, take a few minutes or more to get used to it.
open a few windows, see how much more room you have on the screen.
Just a suggestion of course, it does take a little getting used to, but really not that long.

I'm slowly working my way up,but I don't think I will go any higher than 1280x1024,unless I get a new flat panel the size of my TV!!

JamMeister, many of us would love to have your work at higher res!

1024x768 on 17" monitor...just right for me at home. At work, I use a behemoth 22" monitor with 1280x1024. Too much strain on the old eyes. However, our secretary uses a 19" flat panel with something lower than 800x600! It's kind of scary...the icons are huge!

#32 by Mr mrbiotech - 12/20/2002 2:54:20 AM
JamMeister, many of us would love to have your work at higher res!

mrbiotech, you stated previously that you use 1280x1024, I always include that resolution in my work.
Which resolution are you referring too? Also, the need to keep zip files small for dial-up connections is a prime concern (not to mention keeping it small for the site itself).

I'm using 1024x768. I'd love to use 1280x1024, but I use a laptop, and I can't get the resolution to go higher without pluging it into another monitor. (Christmas present, maybe?)

I'm alwase at 1600x1200 my monitors max... I wish I could go higher.

Well, that's a whole lot of real estate there, my friend....
you've got better eyes than me...

>mrbiotech, you stated previously that you use 1280x1024, I always >include that resolution in my work.
>Which resolution are you referring too? Also, the need to keep zip >files small for dial-up connections is a prime concern (not to >mention keeping it small for the site itself).

Aye, 'tis the truth, and I can't deny it...

Small also tends to mean an easier go on running resources and usable speed, doesn't it.

1280x1024 still looks great, though!

Thanks, mrbiotech...
I'm glad you like my work.

mmmm, 1280x1024 fots we; on a 17 inch and it is the common monitor these days for the price and bang for buck, 19 gives the same at 1600 as 1280 dose on 17. but if you design down it owuld probably be best, Then all you have to do is resize graphics lower and you will not get the nasty jinks in your graphics.

iplural

just a thought, though probably wonr g

mmm, 56k, ok visit this site...

might help you beyond this situation...

http://speedguide.net/

You might get some real gains from the information on this site...

iplural

1280x1024 on a 21". And no, 21" isn't big enough - I want more...

I use 1024x768 little back age, but have just a 15" monitor...

me\ thinks about writing santa

(hope this me\\\ thing works out...?)

damn, gues not... >

Try / me without the space

/me knows these things...

1280X1024 for me! (any res below that I see as kiddie sizes)

ms. X, The higher res, does make things smaller, but it's so much sharper, and crisper. I went from 800, to 1024, to 1280, in a matter of hours. Now anything below 1280, looks horrid to me.

Just for the record I have a 20" monitor, but I ran 1280 on a 17" for 3 years.

Thanks for the link lplural, that was interesting.

/me thinks Styl will get it right on his next try....

btw: how to right red? i thought it was me\ not?

K
you hold my hand and I will!

Styl, try......... /me