Any one else running 1280x1024?

I've still got a 17" TFT screen which is that resolution but it is very much a spare for if something else fails or if I'm working on a system away from it's usual location so I don't have to muck around recabling the normal monitor.

My Dad still uses a 17" TFT of that resolution (and it's not a very good one at that) but he's going to be looking at replacing it in a couple of months (probably a 24" 1080p screen).
 
Useful having little monitors around, maybe for HTPC front end or just when you need to do a OS install, or when remote desktop doesn't work, or for media streamer setting up, monitor just there for that sort of thing and doesn't take up much room. Like a 7" or something.
 
We are still using 1280x1024 at work - each desk has a 24" 1080p screen and 2x 19" 1280x1024.

Not necessarily through choice, more a case of 3x 1080p won't fit on the desks (and some of our bespoke software doesn't make use of any additional screen resolution)
 
I do for my Windows 98 retro PC. However not many games if the era support it, it is 4:3 1024 x 768 or gtfo.

However the 17" 1280 x 1024 desktop looks very nice and is probably higher pixel density than my 27" 1080p monitor.
 
I was running a 1920x1080 screen flanked by a pair of 1280x1024 ones until 2012 when 21:9 came out and I replaced the lot with a 2560x1080 flanked by a pair of 1920x1080 screens.

I still use the 1280x1024 screens for setting up/troubleshooting computers.


You do know how cheap 22" 1080P monitors are these days?
If you don't watch films, play games or use spreadsheets there isn't much difference between 1080p and 1280x1024. I can see why he might not have changed as for the average user it won't make that much of a diff. Thanks to mobile phones less websites actually use widescreen compatible layouts these days than a few years ago (I.E the OCUK site).
 
Work laptop is 1366x768, trying to explain to management how awful it is, is like trying to get blood from a stone.

At home I'm using a 4k TV and a surfacebook which is 3000x2000.
 
Main screen is a 34" 3440x1440, second display is a 48" 3840x2160... so no.

Work laptop is 1366x768, trying to explain to management how awful it is, is like trying to get blood from a stone.

I just picked up a cheap laptop for my Dad from China, brand is 'Jumper'. £170 for a quad core celeron, 6gb ram, 64GB SSD, 1080p IPS display and a metal body. Not the fastest thing in the world but depending on your usage they seem great.

https://techtablets.com/jumper-ezbook-pro/review/
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/jumper-ezbook-3-pro
 
One of the offices I go to has some lovely 24"+ 1080p screens. I always set them up at 1080p but get complaints as everything is "too small". I tried to explain how everything was clearer and they had more screen space but it fell on deaf ears.

Work laptop is 1366x768, trying to explain to management how awful it is, is like trying to get blood from a stone.

I feel your pain, I had a laptop like that, it was truly awful! Not enough height on the screen to see anything.
 
Work laptop is 1366x768, trying to explain to management how awful it is, is like trying to get blood from a stone.

At home I'm using a 4k TV and a surfacebook which is 3000x2000.

Even my phone is 2560x1440 (granted with scaling that is equivalent to a much lower resolution in terms of screen estate). My tablets are 1920x1200 heh.
 
I just picked up a cheap laptop for my Dad from China, brand is 'Jumper'. £170 for a quad core celeron, 6gb ram, 64GB SSD, 1080p IPS display and a metal body. Not the fastest thing in the world but depending on your usage they seem great.

https://techtablets.com/jumper-ezbook-pro/review/
http://www.techradar.com/reviews/jumper-ezbook-3-pro

Thankfully I only need to use it on the odd occasion I'm in the office, they wouldn't purchase laptops like that anyway, very anal about using old and "reliable" products and having everyone on the same hardware.
 
Back
Top Bottom