# 1366 x 768 Most Popular Screen Resolution, Overtakes 1024 x 768: StatCounter



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2012)

1366 x 768 pixels overtook 1024 x 768 as the most popular screen resolution worldwide, for computers, according to the latest statistics by StatCount. This new dominant screen resolution is a particularly important statistic for web-developers, as they can now make their designs more optimized for at least 1366 pixels-wide screens. 1920 x 1080 and 1680 x 1050 hold less than 5% of the market-share each. The growth of 1366 x 768 could have been propelled by dominance in the notebook market (across almost all market-segments), and entry-level PC monitor market. The interactive screen resolution stats graph can be found here.





The press-release by StatCounter follows.



*Screen Resolution Alert for Web Developers*
A major milestone in screen resolution sizes has been passed according to independent web analytics company, StatCounter. The company's research arm, StatCounter Global Stats reports that for the first time 1366x768 has become the most popular screen resolution worldwide, having overtaken 1024x768.

"The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes," commented Aodhan Cullen, CEO, StatCounter. "The screen resolution size people are using is a critical factor for developers when it comes to web design, particularly in the case of fixed width web pages."

Since StatCounter began its tracking of screen resolution in March 2009, as a free service to developers and other users, 1024x768 has been the dominant screen size globally on the web (excluding mobile*). 1024x768 has fallen from 41.8% in March 2009 to 18.6% in March 2012. Over the same period 1366x768 has grown from 0.68% to 19.28%.The third most popular size is 1280x800 at 13%.

Cullen also said that while StatCounter Global Stats provides information on worldwide and regional trends, monitoring the specific screen resolutions being used to view individual sites is also very important.

StatCounter (http://statcounter.com/) provides free website traffic analysis. This allows web developers to capture screen resolution stats on their own and on their client websites in real time. Other information available includes search terms, download stats, exit links and other data.

StatCounter Global Stats data is based on over 15 billion page views per month (4 billion from the US) to the StatCounter network of more than three million websites.

*View at TechPowerUp Main Site*


----------



## Rowsol (Apr 12, 2012)

So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...

A 1080p monitor is $150.  No reason not to have one.


----------



## btarunr (Apr 12, 2012)

The average consumer doesn't want to spend >$100 on a monitor, and >$300 on a computer.

TPU is optimized for 4K screens, Eyefinity, and 3DVision Surround, btw.


----------



## Peter1986C (Apr 12, 2012)

^ True.


----------



## JKnows (Apr 12, 2012)

The sad thing we buy because laptops do not have other option. I hate 1366x768 resolution.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 12, 2012)

Rowsol said:


> So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...
> 
> A 1080p monitor is $150.  No reason not to have one.



Well, given that nearly every laptop sold in retail has a 720p screen with it, and most "normal people" buy laptops nowadays, and usually in retail, I can't really say it's surprising.  Outside of business, art, and gaming, higher resolutions aren't exactly as much of a push.  Especially for budget buyers.  

So eh, not surprised.  Plus smartphones are starting to have 720p screens too.  With any device sub-4.8" having a retina display @ 720p, other than for marketing it would be a waste of processor resources for the most part to push past that resolution, so 720p may remain a norm for a while.


----------



## specks (Apr 12, 2012)

I am right on the spot. Im okay doing my stuff at this resolution


----------



## Peter1986C (Apr 12, 2012)

I am still at 1280x1024, my laptop is 1440x900. Both 17"


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 12, 2012)

yea i'm still using 1280x1024 as well, same on my laptop (thought it'll do 1400x1050). 

@Vulpesveritas Wouldn't 1366x768 be 768p?


----------



## hhumas (Apr 12, 2012)

all mini notebooks use same resolution that is why its growing faster and faster


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 12, 2012)

Rowsol said:


> So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...
> 
> A 1080p monitor is $150.  No reason not to have one.



Actually there is.

A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.

With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card and you might already have problems in newer games which will have lower fps already. Yes, even 1080p will eventually get to the point of the above two resolutions, but it will take some more time.

I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...

So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...


----------



## Kantastic (Apr 12, 2012)

I'm on an 11.6" 1366x768 screen and think it's perfect. There's no way I'm getting a bigger laptop without at least 1600x900 like the Zenbook.


----------



## rainwilds (Apr 12, 2012)

Finally web designers can start making sites a little wider than the 1000px default.


----------



## acerace (Apr 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Actually there is.
> 
> A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.
> 
> ...



I second this. With my aging PC, low res is more preferably.


----------



## Derek12 (Apr 12, 2012)

my desktop: 1280x1024 perfect for me
my netbook: 1024x600 idem


----------



## scooper22 (Apr 12, 2012)

yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200


----------



## NC37 (Apr 12, 2012)

I spent a decade in 1280x1024...then I jumped to 1680x1050...oh it is such heaven!

If you must, you must, but you don't know the glory of high res till you've really used it and seen the difference. Heck mine isn't even high anymore! One of these days I'll shift to 1080 but for now, I'm content.


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 12, 2012)

Wow... talk about stragglers...
I'm running 2048x1152 + 1920x1200 and I feel like I always run out of space...
And no, I don't have a super powerful graphics card, but that "old" 6870 plays all the games I play just fine at 2048x1152...


----------



## gumpty (Apr 12, 2012)

Oh NOOOOOESSSS!!! This is *TERRIBLE* news!

There are so many websites currently optimised for width at 1024, which means my monitor can display two browser windows side by side perfectly.

Don't change this, developers. Please don't do it!


----------



## TheLostSwede (Apr 12, 2012)

gumpty said:


> Oh NOOOOOESSSS!!! This is *TERRIBLE* news!
> 
> There are so many websites currently optimised for width at 1024, which means my monitor can display two browser windows side by side perfectly.
> 
> Don't change this, developers. Please don't do it!



I guess I'm not the only one with a 2048x1152 display then


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 12, 2012)

scooper22 said:


> yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200



Lets don't exaggerate things...



NC37 said:


> I spent a decade in 1280x1024...then I jumped to 1680x1050...oh it is such heaven!
> 
> If you must, you must, but you don't know the glory of high res till you've really used it and seen the difference. Heck mine isn't even high anymore! One of these days I'll shift to 1080 but for now, I'm content.



What glory? Only difference between my and your image is the physical size in inches diagonally. With all the horsepower to spare from the gfx card, i can use 4x FSAA easily, but most of the time i use even higher values. I have 16x AF enabled all the time by default for like ages. So the jaggies are total history and i see just a smooth detailed image.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2012)

I thought 1280x1024 was something


----------



## Isenstaedt (Apr 12, 2012)

Chevalr1c said:


> I am still at 1280x1024, my laptop is 1440x900. Both 17"





xBruce88x said:


> @Vulpesveritas Wouldn't 1366x768 be 768p?


1280x1024 here too. I'm looking forward to get either a 1440x900 or a 1600x900 monitor on of these months.


----------



## Goodman (Apr 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Actually there is.
> 
> A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.
> 
> ...



Are you kidding me?
I7@3.8ghz
6GB ram
6950 
You wouldn't have any problems playing games at 1920x1080 , C'mon! what are still doing with a 4:3 monitor?
You actually loosing a lots of the extras games visual not to have it played in widescreen , i would never go back to 4:3 monitor as far as games & movies are concerned

With my system i can play Warhead full quality @ 1920x1080 & Crysis 2 a little less they both do about 30f/s which is fine by me but worst case scenario i could always choose a lower resolution even if not native res. it will still look great in games 

Anyhow having a nice system like your it's shame not to have a better monitor to go with it...


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2012)

Gimmer 1920x1200



Goodman said:


> Are you kidding me?
> I7@3.8ghz
> 6GB ram
> 6950
> ...


----------



## mtosev (Apr 12, 2012)

man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 12, 2012)

16:10 100%.  I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.


----------



## wickerman (Apr 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> Actually there is.
> 
> A 1280x1024 or a 1366x768 screens can be powered by mid-high end graphic card for up to 200 EUR and it will last for literally years and you can play games with max possible settings no problem.
> 
> ...



I would argue that playing 1280x1024 with an HD 6950 is just not making full use of your card right now. As a comparison, I used an HD 6950 to upgrade my brother's aging Q6600 based system so he could run eyefinity in SWTOR with 3x 23" panels. Despite his system being a bit dated he's still able to play high settings and manage 50-60 fps in demanding areas. So that single GPU is pushing 3x 1080p panels and almost 5x as many pixels as your single 1280x1024 display. So that just shows how much of your GPU is sitting idle right now.

You do have a valid and legitimate point that the card will last you for several years and remain able to play some of your games at high settings. But remember the ultra settings in some games will rely on GPU technology that may be implemented in the latest version of Direct X, Direct3D, or OpenGL which your card will not support, so no you will not always be able to run ultra settings in the latest games every year despite running a lower resolution. Some games today (I believe Shogun 2 is among them) require you to run DX11 mode to play the ultra detail settings and get tessellation, where as the high detail modes would be limited to DX10. So some doing what you have done and is still running an older card from a few years ago may still be running a very powerful DX10 card and running Shogun 2 smoothly at 1280x1024, but wont be getting the full detail experience because they dont have DX11 support.

Which is why, perhaps the better option for lower resolution gaming would be to buy the cheaper mid range cards every year or so? That way you get the latest tech every time, you take advantage of the latest processing (lower power, lower heat, lower noise), you get the latest features (directx, opengl, latest media acceleration, etc). 

But honestly, resolution IS king. More pixels means more clarity, you get to see more detail, you're not running so much texture compression, and you don't have to rely on a lot of post processing or AA/AF to improve image quality. At 2560x1440 (or 4360x1440 depending if I want to run my triple panels in business mode or fun mode  ) I really don't even need AA enabled because you can hardly tell the difference. 

TheLostSwede is correct, at 1080p you DO NOT need a $400 gpu, pretty much anything in the $100 range will do. A GTX 460 will plow through any game at 1080p with high settings. 

At this point the lowest resolution device I own is my 1080p TV. My ipad runs 2048x1536, my PC runs 4360x1440 (17" portrait, 27" landscape 17" portrait).


----------



## Goodman (Apr 12, 2012)

Vulpesveritas said:


> 16:10 100%.  I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.



The advantage of 16:10 are for text & web surfing because of the more height they have but if i would use my pc only for that an 4:3 monitor would be best

On an 16:10 or 16:9 monitor you can always split the screen in the middle with 2 pages , each page would look like if you were using an 4:3 monitor , well... more like two of them in fact...

Anyhow i like my 16:9 because i can surf the web on half my screen & watch a movie on the other half or do something else at the same time 



mtosev said:


> man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way



They are both widescreen & the extras 120 pixels are not that much to go nuts over it IMO


----------



## Milky (Apr 12, 2012)

I wonder what the average screen resolution is for a TPU user? Personally I just got one of those super cheap catleap monitors with 2560x1440.


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 12, 2012)

16:10 is silly, you get the same amount of space for movies, but not a whole lot extra for web and games. You should determine if your web browsing, photoshopping, gaming or watching movies more and make your mind up on a 16:9 or 3:4 monitor


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 12, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> 16:10 is silly, you get the same amount of space for movies, but not a whole lot extra for web and games. You should determine if your web browsing, photoshopping, gaming or watching movies more and make your mind up on a 16:9 or 3:4 monitor


I find that 16:10 fills up my visible space better than 16:9, but that's IMO I suppose.


----------



## Derek12 (Apr 12, 2012)

scooper22 said:


> yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200



Until recently I was using 800x600 so go figure


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 12, 2012)

@wickerman
How exactly you get more detail if you subsequently also have higher diagonal? You're just making image bigger, not more detailed. Because you're not increasing the pixel density. And pixel density is what is actually increasing visual detail.

Also if i'm not fully utilizing my HD6950, that means i can live with it easily till DX12 arrives and even past that point since DX12 games won't arrive immediately. Most of you will have to buy another DX11 card in order to even get properly playable games.
Basically i feel like i'm using a console. Whatever i throw at it works as intended. High framerate, max detail. No compromises for minimal cost. It's really a budget gamer's heaven.

I'll eventually go to 1920x1080 or whatever it will be at that point, but you'll all probably be at 2560x1920 or something at that point. And i don't mind that. It works great for me.


----------



## HammerON (Apr 12, 2012)

My lappy is 1366x768, but my desktop is 2560x1600
I hate when I am away from home and try to play at 1366x768


----------



## Melvis (Apr 12, 2012)

What is 1600*1200 rare these days? :S


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 12, 2012)

Personally i thought 1280x1024 would be the most popular because its the cheapest to produce and they use it a lot commercially


----------



## Milky (Apr 12, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Personally i thought 1280x1024 would be the most popular because its the cheapest to produce and they use it a lot commercially



I agree, I would have expect that to be the most popular, im also surprised at how low 1920x1080 ranks...


----------



## treehouse (Apr 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> With 1920x1080 screen, you need a 300+ EUR card



damn that new ipad must have a HELLUVA gpu!


----------



## Bjorn_Of_Iceland (Apr 12, 2012)

Probably workstations for them corporate drones.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Apr 12, 2012)

My laptop have a 17" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. And is a disaster. Even if I keep my DPI to almost 200%, Win 7 still fracks things up. Everything is scaled badly, the java/flash/active x site and apps don't scale well with high DPI, not to say that they actually don't scale at all, so I need to use a microscope to read text and stuff; etc, etc. Imagine is sharp, but not that sharp compared to my friends laptop which works at 1366x769, and everything is PERFECTLY scaled and sized. 
So bigger resolution doesn't necessary means better quality, ESPECIALLY for Microsoft OSes...



treehouse said:


> damn that new ipad must have a HELLUVA gpu!



Enjoy trolling? Are you playng Crysis of BF3 on your tablet?? Hmm??


----------



## swirl09 (Apr 12, 2012)

RejZoR said:


> I'm telling you this from my personal experience. I have a 1280x1024 screen and most will argue that it's too low res and too old. But i like it. Size doesn't bother me, but it just works and i can play EVERYTHING with my HD6950 at max possible settings. Most ppl were scared with Far Cry, Crysis series and latest Battlefield 3. I wasn't. I knew it would run easily with Ultra settings. And it did. With this screen i can simply watch everyone rushing for HD7970 and GTX 680 and just well, laugh. And i'll see if there will even be any need for HD8970 and GTX 780...
> 
> So, the first rule of cheap gaming, have a moderate resolution screen and you'll get through some high quality gaming much much cheaper. At the moment this resolution is 1366x769 and 1280x1024. Wide and boxed format, whatever you prefer. The biggest problem is they all rush for cheap 1080p screens and then complain how their games are slow...



Well I wont argue about your res, if your happy with it, what else matters? And sure enough, pushing fewer pixels means there no need for top notch GPUs or the need to upgrade frequently. I dont think Id go so far as to laugh at others though. If you have a higher res, there is always the option to run lower/windowed (where appropriate). And actually, with the res you are running, Ive no idea why you even have a 6950OC it doesnt know what its doing in there!




HammerON said:


> My lappy is 1366x768, but my desktop is 2560x1600
> I hate when I am away from home and try to play at 1366x768



Yup, I know that feeling! Ive 3 of them (only game on 1 - pass on hassle of multi screen, BEZEL, lack of support and the need to spend an awful lot on GPUs) and you just cant express how much work space someone with one 1080p monitor is missing ^_^!

Although speaking of gaming, I havent bought any games really in over a year since Id have to tone down res's and settings. I personally dont even want to see them in that state... Roll on new build in a few weeks =]


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 12, 2012)

scooper22 said:


> yeah, let's get all back to 640x480 or even 320x200


and lets bring back pixel doubling in games as well (F.E.A.R. on a GMA950 anyone?) 



mtosev said:


> man i hate 16:9 on pc monitors. 16:10 All The Way





Vulpesveritas said:


> 16:10 100%.  I have a 1920x1200 and it is quite a bit more pleasant than any 16:9 monitor IMO.



Agreed... for some reason the extra 120px seems better.



Melvis said:


> What is 1600*1200 rare these days? :S



I got a KDS Avitron that does that res pretty well. I'm not using it atm though, it uses a whopping 200watts, while my current display is only using 35w  Though I do miss the higher res.


I can see the need for higher res in games, but everything else not so much, at least not until Windows gets better with DPI settings and scaling. I don't really need the space for the icons, i found an alternative to filling up the desktop. I'll post a vid a little later.


----------



## Red_Machine (Apr 12, 2012)

It's better for web pages that are properly formatted.  It sucks having to scroll to the right to see an entire image or post.


----------



## xBruce88x (Apr 12, 2012)

here's a little trick to clear the desktop icons

http://youtu.be/zbi1jMXNIKk?hd=1

after you get everything set up,  right click the desktop and go to view then take the check off of "show desktop icons".

i can make a better "how to" video if anyone needs it.


----------



## treehouse (Apr 12, 2012)

Prima.Vera said:


> My laptop have a 17" screen and a 1920x1200 resolution. And is a disaster. Even if I keep my DPI to almost 200%, Win 7 still fracks things up. Everything is scaled badly, the java/flash/active x site and apps don't scale well with high DPI, not to say that they actually don't scale at all, so I need to use a microscope to read text and stuff; etc, etc. Imagine is sharp, but not that sharp compared to my friends laptop which works at 1366x769, and everything is PERFECTLY scaled and sized.
> So bigger resolution doesn't necessary means better quality, ESPECIALLY for Microsoft OSes...
> 
> 
> ...



no, neither is 99% of the general public


----------



## _JP_ (Apr 12, 2012)

Those 19'' LCDs must be selling like hotcakes. They also are the reason the VGA port is still around.


----------



## Completely Bonkers (Apr 12, 2012)

I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular".  Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens.  Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format.  I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens.  I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.

The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 12, 2012)

Rowsol said:


> So this is why websites like to use 1/3 of my screen...
> 
> A 1080p monitor is $150.  No reason not to have one.





btarunr said:


> The average consumer doesn't want to spend >$100 on a monitor, and >$300 on a computer.
> 
> TPU is optimized for 4K screens, Eyefinity, and 3DVision Surround, btw.



Good thing you can get a 1080p monitor from Newegg for ~$100.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Apr 12, 2012)

mastrdrver said:


> Good thing you can get a 1080p monitor from Newegg for ~$100.



Sure...if you live in North America. The fortunate elitist in me first reacted to this title like "Hah is this from 1998?" but it's kind of important to remember this is not a freaking Steam survey but rather general *world-wide* use and on not just desktop computers.

What does a nice 1080P display generally cost in, say, Bangladesh?

Though I would also like to point out that if you're a gamer and you have the system power than at least 1080P widescreen is a no-brainer.


----------



## Vulpesveritas (Apr 12, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular".  Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens.  Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format.  I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens.  I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.
> 
> The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...



Funny as I see most high end android tablets running 16:9 as it is a better resolution for media consumption for most people.  Given that your field of vision is closer to 16:9/10 than 4:3.   Hence the reason for it and all.


----------



## Prima.Vera (Apr 12, 2012)

_JP_ said:


> Those 19'' LCDs must be selling like hotcakes. They also are the reason the VGA port is still around.



No. You forgot about laptops??



Completely Bonkers said:


> Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens



I'll take that bet, and raise you x10.


----------



## lyndonguitar (Apr 12, 2012)

I use 1366 x 768 too! but only 3 times 1366 x 768 in eyefinity. its not that bad


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 12, 2012)

just go outside where the resolution is infinite!!!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 12, 2012)

Completely Bonkers said:


> I hate to say it, but, Apple and the new macbook iPad3 and iPod/fon 5 will redefine what "is popular".  Give or take 3 years, and I bet we are back to 4:3 screens.  Funny how everyone hates on 4:3 yet most tablets are going back to this very sensible format.  I think I have tired everyone here with my constant call for 2K and 4K high resolution, high pixel density screens.  I hope they "go consumer" soon, so we can all benefit.
> 
> The nicest screens I have seen to date are 2Kx2K. But they are industrial/avionic use and cost a fortune. If only I had deeper pockets...



16:9 format distorts alot, plus movies that have blackbars still do in the wide screen tvs anyway


----------



## Solaris17 (Apr 12, 2012)

i love how this news post was about the standardizing of an HD resolution to johnny normal, and it turned into a bunch of TPU high rollers talking about 4kx4k screen resolutions because they saw the chance to throw around that they have $$.

good game TPU [H]


----------



## Easy Rhino (Apr 12, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> i love how this news post was about the standardizing of an HD resolution to johnny normal, and it turned into a bunch of TPU high rollers talking about 4kx4k screen resolutions because they saw the chance to throw around that they have $$.
> 
> good game TPU



no you!


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 12, 2012)

And I thought 1080p looked like crap. I really need to get 2560x1440+


----------



## mastrdrver (Apr 12, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> i love how this news post was about the standardizing of an HD resolution to johnny normal, and it turned into a bunch of TPU high rollers talking about 4kx4k screen resolutions because they saw the chance to throw around that they have $$.
> 
> good game TPU [H]



Yea! What's this world coming to when you can't find a few good 4kx4k monitors anymore........


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 13, 2012)

My desktop is 1920x1200
Laptop 1600x900

Using 1366x768 makes me want to puke.

Everything is so big reminds me of using a mac.

I also find it sad that apple had to push high res in the ipad 3 for the retarded panel makers to wake up.

16:10 FTW!


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 13, 2012)

Makaveli said:


> My desktop is 1920x1200
> Laptop 1600x900
> 
> Using 1366x768 makes me want to puke.
> ...



Ive had 1920x1200 since 2004, In my Laptop- Dell Inspiron XPS Gen 1/9100, id watch movies in that resolution and Game in the next Tick Below.

I Personally Prefer 16:10 or 4:3 or 5:4


----------



## DonInKansas (Apr 13, 2012)

This is because major laptops have shoved this resolution down the throats of "value" laptop consumers pure and simple.

What I wouldn't do for an affordable 1920x1200 monitor.  1080p = blergh.


----------



## eidairaman1 (Apr 13, 2012)

DonInKansas said:


> This is because major laptops have shoved this resolution down the throats of "value" laptop consumers pure and simple.
> 
> What I wouldn't do for an affordable 1920x1200 monitor.  1080p = blergh.



For the TIme of my laptop it was a Desktop replacement and it performed well, still does today For Netflix, Music, Youtube.

If i could Id take the chassis and put the fastest guts in it...


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 13, 2012)

xBruce88x said:


> here's a little trick to clear the desktop icons
> 
> http://youtu.be/zbi1jMXNIKk?hd=1
> 
> ...



I use that method as well as normal icons. 



Solaris17 said:


> i love how this news post was about the standardizing of an HD resolution to johnny normal, and it turned into a bunch of TPU high rollers talking about 4kx4k screen resolutions because they saw the chance to throw around that they have $$.
> 
> good game TPU [H]



I find that, by far, the most cockyness on tpu comes from people who have higher than 1920x1080 screens... like that catleap thread... dickfest much? :shadedshu

Get over yourselves, so you have money, congrats. I have a happy life, which is better than any amount of money...


----------



## swirl09 (Apr 13, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> I find that, by far, the most cockyness on tpu comes from people who have higher than 1920x1080 screens...


So, most cockyness begins at a res thats a notch higher than yours? Interesting, and convenient...



Yo_Wattup said:


> like that catleap thread... dickfest much? :shadedshu


Well, I never heard of catleap before someone mentioned it earlier in this thread and since they used it in conjunction with the word cheap and you used it to describe an item that entitles you to bragging rights, Im confused! Intrigued, I just searched for it. Its a 300 quid POS....



Yo_Wattup said:


> Get over yourselves, so you have money, congrats.


You should probably rethink what constitutes having money.



Yo_Wattup said:


> I have a happy life, which is better than any amount of money...


Great attitude! (*soft voice* that bold statement somehow carries less impact when used in a posting where you show an exorbitant amount of interest in others possessions *end of soft voice*)


And to "contribute" further to this thread in a more appropriate and internet friendly fashion - 
gay res is gay


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 13, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> I use that method as well as normal icons.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why do you care what other people are bragging about??

It comes off as insecure and jealous.

As you said you are happy with your life so just worry about you who cares what other people do.


----------



## Delta6326 (Apr 13, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> I find that, by far, the most cockyness on tpu comes from people who have higher than 1920x1080 screens... like that catleap thread... dickfest much?
> 
> Get over yourselves, so you have money, congrats. I have a happy life, which is better than any amount of money...



I thought the whole point to the Catleap thread was for people to get a sweet display for cheap...Retail for over$800+ and can be had for around $340 is good deal in my book.


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Apr 13, 2012)

Makaveli said:


> Everything is so big reminds me of using a mac.



Um...a Mac 15 years ago? This comment makes no sense.



swirl09 said:


> Well, I never heard of cat leap before...Its a 300 quid POS....



Your whole post came off as rude and cocky but this statement above also shows you don't know what the hell you are talking about in the slightest. You admit that you never heard of it but then assume it's a "POS" based on the price alone. Brilliant job.


----------



## swirl09 (Apr 13, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Your whole post... Brilliant job.



Why would you assume its based on price alone? Kindly dont quote out of context ;p

As I said, never heard of um and went to look up this thing that one calls cheap and another thinks costs a lot/ brings bragging rights. The information out there is that the panels used in said monitors dont pass the QA of other major brands and this company scoops them up, down grades the rating and sells them nice and cheap. _POS _might have been a little harsh - but the sentiment stands.

EDIT: 1 more thing, I find people who misquote and make assumptions to be cocky and rude XD Dont worry about it though, eh?


----------



## Wrigleyvillain (Apr 13, 2012)

Go read the thread, hell, even just the first post. Thats the whole point of the popularity of those displays right now. Can save big bucks on pretty high-end 2560x1440 27" (direct from Korea).


----------



## Yo_Wattup (Apr 14, 2012)

swirl09 said:


> So, most cockyness begins at a res thats a notch higher than yours? Interesting, and convenient...
> 
> 
> Well, I never heard of catleap before someone mentioned it earlier in this thread and since they used it in conjunction with the word cheap and you used it to describe an item that entitles you to bragging rights, Im confused! Intrigued, I just searched for it. Its a 300 quid POS....
> ...



Cool story bro. Your comment involves no facts, information, or insight, just trolling. you are one of the cocks. Feel good? Of course you do, listen to your super cool attitude. Man, wish i was as cool as you.



Makaveli said:


> Why do you care what other people are bragging about??
> 
> It comes off as insecure and jealous.
> 
> As you said you are happy with your life so just worry about you who cares what other people do.



Its just that people ridiculing others because they do not have as large a reso as them does this great site no good, it seems like people like swirl are here repel people away from here, I dont think that is a good thing for the site. there was a guy in the catleap thread who ridiculed me for having a big screen but 'only' 1920x1080, and without even knowing the brand or specs of my screen, started going on about how much greater his screen is than mine.. i mean, c'mon?


----------



## swirl09 (Apr 14, 2012)

Yo_Wattup said:


> Cool story bro. Your comment involves no facts


First line.



Yo_Wattup said:


> information


Second line.

Ok, look, Im relatively new around here, peoples names dont mean much(/anything) to me. Its only dawning on me how much on the younger side you are so not much point carrying on this path. 

The only reason Im making this post is to express in a different manner my point. That being you really shouldnt be worrying about what others have or do with it. You do come across a little overly touchy, even taking into account your age. I dont know if that guy was ridiculing you over your current display, but _if_ he was, then hes the idiot and best not concern yourself with that or then make sweeping accusations that anyone above 1080p is somehow in the same boat. It really doesnt make sense! And it would be an idea to maybe briefly look at previous postings before making such a claim on a person (ie me), my first post on this very thread was actually in full support of someone using a lower (or frankly - whatever) res they are happy with. So Im not trying to scare anyone anyway, ok?

@Wrigley
I dont need or want further education on that monitor. I do understand its popularity - Its a 27inch display for peanuts, there's not that many dots to join  But when something seems a little too good to be true, it very likely is. There is a reason for its price, you dont get a warranty, you dont get QA, the lack of connectivity or any frills really, poor stand (thats actually come up several times - wobbly stand. Just what you want on your new big monitor huh!), depending on your country an anal assault from customs, and seemly a better than 1 in 10 chance that your display will arrive either dead or with dead pixels.

Any one of those points *on their own* is an absolute deal breaker for me! So, I do get it, but its a giant PASS from me.


----------



## RejZoR (Apr 14, 2012)

_JP_ said:


> Those 19'' LCDs must be selling like hotcakes. They also are the reason the VGA port is still around.



Actually i was having problems finding 19 incher with 5:4 ratio like 3-4 years ago. These days its nearly imposible to get one. I have it plugged to DVI since day 1 (from 3-4 years ago).
VGA mostly exists in order to connect laptops without HDMI to LCD TV's.


----------



## Solaris17 (Apr 14, 2012)

Makaveli said:


> Why do you care what other people are bragging about??
> 
> It comes off as insecure and jealous.
> 
> As you said you are happy with your life so just worry about you who cares what other people do.



no it doesnt. I agree with him. Threads like this become ruined. Its just news but it also happens when people need help. one person answers the question and the other 26 replies are people arguing about how much better their stuff is. Iv seen this get increasingly worse over the past several years. the only person i see fixing it is erocker but even he cant handle all the douchbags. Its people like that that make me sick. TPU never used to be like that. none of you are better than 14yr/o COD players. they just have their own CC instead of using mommys.


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 16, 2012)

Solaris17 said:


> no it doesnt. I agree with him. Threads like this become ruined. Its just news but it also happens when people need help. one person answers the question and the other 26 replies are people arguing about how much better their stuff is. Iv seen this get increasingly worse over the past several years. the only person i see fixing it is erocker but even he cant handle all the douchbags. Its people like that that make me sick. TPU never used to be like that. none of you are better than 14yr/o COD players. they just have their own CC instead of using mommys.



You should try doing what I do just skip over those post.

Cause as you said they are in every thread.


----------



## Makaveli (Apr 16, 2012)

Wrigleyvillain said:


> Um...a Mac 15 years ago? This comment makes no sense.



Yeah its been quite sometime since I used one. 

It made sense in my head when I posted it


----------

