|
Sagebrush posted:lol a 10 inch tablet. my mobile telephone with a 5 inch screen has a resolution of 1920x1080. Excuse me but i'm talking about using a proper OSPOS, a desktop OS like Windows 10. Try using it with your 5" touchscreen. I mean, where do you need all these pixels?
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:Wrongo, gently caress face! It's bad!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:basically anything below 1680x1050 (or 1600 x 900 i guess if you have fail tv screen instead of real work screen) is unusable Hey man, remember that time you argued that loving animals was cool?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:i have two 1440x900 monitors at work. it's pretty bad for 21" or whatever they are. At work we have a highspeed camera setup that costs like $50000. There's a $100 1600*900 TN screen dangling off it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 09:36
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Hey man, remember that time you argued that loving animals was cool? that's obtuse even for you
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 09:51
|
|
|
i had a 50 inch 720 tv. it was cool and good
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 10:44
|
|
|
smoke 1366 x 768 weeds imo, op
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 10:48
|
|
|
Maximum Leader posted:i had a 50 inch 720 tv. it was cool and good maniacdevnull posted:Wrongo, gently caress face! It's bad!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
Maximum Leader posted:i had a 50 inch 720 tv. it was cool and good i will fite u
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
a thread laden with shame
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Hey man, remember that time you argued that loving animals was cool? Don't worry, I won't talk about your mom again
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:35
|
|
|
1366x768 is a garbage resolution and a worse aspect ratio
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
all i know about my displays is that they are suitably high resolution to please me
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
1920x1200 works 4 me
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
mishaq posted:1920x1200 works 4 me x2
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Thanks Ants posted:1366x768 is a garbage resolution and a worse aspect ratio true 16:9 is piss garbage it's not wide enough to have all the widescreen advantages but it's wide enough to have all the widescreen disadvantages 16:10 is still acceptable and 3:2 is even better (and it's a common photo format so you can even justify it to spergs and content creators), so just standardise on 3:2 and make some additional ultrawide screens for people who want two screens without a bezel in the middle.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:29
|
|
|
3:2 owns bones thanks Microsoft
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
3440x1440 gets me all hot and bothered
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
Smythe posted:thats not adaquate ＭＯＲＥ ＰＩＸＥＬＳ ＦＯＲ ＴＨＥ ＰＩＸＥＬ ＧＯＤ
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2016 23:56
|
|
|
Bloody posted:3:2 owns bones thanks Microsoft i think you mean thx google for the chromebook pixel, the og $1500 useless touchscreen laptop.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 03:01
|
|
|
mishaq posted:1920x1200 works 4 me
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
i get actual irl mad that '4k' is 2160p and not 4320p like it should be
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:is there imacs with better gpus @ that resolution because they all look like they run at like 8fps I tried playing 4K video on one and it basically melted down No, they do not sell iMacs or macbooks with hardware newer than 5 years ago and they never have.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:13
|
|
|
mishaq posted:1920x1200 works 4 me yeah same
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:53
|
|
|
i like 1920x1080 its good
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 06:55
|
|
|
online friend posted:i like 1920x1080 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:11
|
|
|
my thunderbolt monitors at work are fuckin huge
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 07:13
|
|
|
1080p at 50" going for lowest DPI in yospos 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 08:39
|
|
|
echinopsis posted:1080p at 50" You just know there's some guy with the original 1366x768 microsoft surface coffee table PC.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 11:30
|
|
|
online friend posted:i like 1920x1080 *stands up and slams hands on desk* actually
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:24
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:i get actual irl mad that '4k' is 2160p and not 4320p like it should be it actually makes more sense to horizontal resolution because for movies it doesn't change as often as the vertical resolution but it's pretty confusion to switch after using the vertical for a decade
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:53
|
|
|
Or just give them both like God intended, also you can leave the "i" or "p" off because nothing is interlaced anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 13:58
|
|
|
 Moist von Lipwig posted:i get actual irl mad that '4k' is 2160p and not 4320p like it should be i kinda also think it should actually be 4000p but then i guess not since the k means less significant figgies?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:Or just give them both like God intended, also you can leave the "i" or "p" off because nothing is interlaced anymore. Like people have any idea what those mean
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:16
|
|
|
bring back megapixels
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
My resolution is 420x69. Lol
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Fuzzy Mammal posted:i think you mean thx google for the chromebook pixel, the og $1500 useless touchscreen laptop. I thought those were 1:√2 or something?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:My resolution is 420x69. Lol 
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
i hate the ipad because it has all those goddamn pixels and scales everything up to super grandma e-z reading size. what a waste of perfectly good pixels
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 3, 2024 10:01 |
|
|
Citizen Tayne posted:My resolution is 420x69. Lol Too wide and low res. 6969x4200 superiority.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2016 15:15
|
|