You are not logged in.

#1 2004-04-20 21:38:19

beniro
Member
From: St. Petersburg, FL, USA
Registered: 2002-12-31
Posts: 312

Random Question: Why 1280x1024 and not 1280x960?

It seems odd to me that 1280x1024 is such a common resolution in Linux.  Why not 1280x960, which is in accordance with the 4:3 ratio that seems to be in effect in most other PC resolutions, like 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200 and so on.

I assume you can still do 1280x960 with no problems, right???  Anyone have an idea why it's 1280x1024 that became prevalent in Linux as opposed to 1280x960???

Offline

#2 2004-04-20 23:27:01

colnago
Member
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2004-03-25
Posts: 438

Re: Random Question: Why 1280x1024 and not 1280x960?

1280x1024 is common in unix/bsd and MS also.  You need to adjust your monitor to reduce the horizontal width a bit to make it render images 100% correctly.  You can get it fairly accurate by making a horizontal and a vertical line of the same length in gimp and then adjusting the monitor width until the lines match (use a ruler or a piece of paper).   

I think it is used, rather than 1280x960, just because you can get a little more on the screen.  Maybe there were some monitors that were made specifically for this?  A TV pixel aspect ratio is ~.9, which is close to 1.25/1.33 (1280:1024/1280:960), maybe from that?

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB