On Tue, Jan 21, 2003 at 03:12:39PM +0000, Anthony Campbell wrote: > > > CGA: 640 X 200 (8*8 font, 80chars * 25 lines) > > > DCGA: 640 X 400 (8*16 font, 80chars * 25 lines) > > > VGA: 640 x 480 > > > SVGA: 800 x 720 > > > XGA: 1024 x 768 > > > SXGA 1280 x1024 > > > UXGA: 1600 x1440 > > > > [snip] > > On a slightly different note, is there much point in going to the higher > resolutions even if they are available? My monitor will go up to > 1600x1440 but in practice I don't find any use in going above 1024x768. > I know the argument is that you can have more windows open but this > means you have to squint at small type. If you make the type larger you > are back where you started. > > I therefore leave mine at 1024x768 and (in icewm) have 9 desktops with > different apps on each. This seems to me more sensible, or am I missing > something?
Personal preference, and monitor size, I suspect. I have a 19" monitor where I regularly run 1600x1200; I like being able to have a lot of terminal windows open on the same desktop when I'm coding. My sparc has a 20" monitor; I run 1280x1024 there. I find 1024x768 to be irritating (but obviously YMMV :-) -- Nathan Norman - Incanus Networking mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] A right is not what someone gives you; it's what no one can take from you. -- Ramsey Clark -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
