Forgot your password?

My favorite resolution for the new year:

Displaying poll results.
VGA, SVGA, or WSVGA
  1416 votes / 12%
XGA, XGA+, or WXGA
  600 votes / 5%
HD+, UXGA, or WSXGA+
  2455 votes / 22%
QWXGA, WQHD, or WQXGA
  2504 votes / 22%
Some other resolution entirely
  1437 votes / 13%
Some other *kind* of resolution entirely
  2542 votes / 23%
10954 total votes.
[ Voting Booth | Other Polls | Back Home ]
  • Don't complain about lack of options. You've got to pick a few when you do multiple choice. Those are the breaks.
  • Feel free to suggest poll ideas if you're feeling creative. I'd strongly suggest reading the past polls first.
  • This whole thing is wildly inaccurate. Rounding errors, ballot stuffers, dynamic IPs, firewalls. If you're using these numbers to do anything important, you're insane.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

My favorite resolution for the new year:

Comments Filter:
  • WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:45PM (#42465719)

    I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?

    • by BobNET (119675)

      It's hard to tell from the options (although this [wikipedia.org] is helpful in deciphering them), but my other favourite resolution, 1440x900 isn't there either. I guess no one is buying 16:10 monitors anymore...

      • Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Z00L00K (682162) on Friday January 04, 2013 @02:58AM (#42472671) Homepage

        Not many offers a 16:10 monitor, that's a problem, and even fewer offers 4:3 monitors. Monitors today seems to be dictated by TV size rather than being practical.

      • I guess no one is buying 16:10 monitors anymore.

        Do you really care directly about aspect ratio and if so why?

        Personally I don't really care about aspect ratio per-se, what I really care about is how many pixels of height (and to a lesser extent width but width only counts as a tiebreaker) i'm getting. The minimums I consider acceptable are 1024x768 for a laptop, 1280x1024 for a secondary desktop and 1600x1200 for a primary desktop.

        The last monitor I bought (pretty recently) was a nice 1920x1200 one and if I had to buy another main monitor for a main desk

        • by tolan-b (230077)

          That 1920x1200 monitor you got is a nice 16:10 model ;)

          The reason the aspect matters is that average vertical resolutions have been cut because panels are all built around HDTV resolutions these days. I also have a 1920x1200 (24") monitor and it was quite find to hard one at this size, almost all the available ones only had 1080 lines.

    • Seconded. Although I am not nerd enough, because I had no clue what my resolution denominator was. Now, when someone asks me about my desktop resolution, I'll act smug and say "WUXGA, motherfucker!". That WILL help improve my intra-office relationship.

      • by RDW (41497)

        I was only vaguely aware there were names for resolutions beyond XGA. I also have WUXGA (bitch!) - as a photo geek, the 1.6 aspect ratio is about as close as I can get to the 1.5 of dSLRs (and 35mm film cameras). A pity nobody makes 1920 x 1280 (1.5), though there now seem to be tablets with this resolution.

    • Also missing: FHD (1920x1080). The list is missing the two most common monitor resolutions. :\ Nice work, Slashdot pollsters. Reminds me of the "1 km, 2 km, 5 km, 10000 km" distance-travelled-for-holidays polls.
    • by TWX (665546)
      I'm running 1400x1050 (SXGA+) at work on a 21" Viewsonic, and 1920x1440 on whatever 23" monitor I have at home, a Samsung I think.

      I actually like 4:3 monitors most of the time. Toolbars do not drown out the content on the screen at this aspect ratio. And at home, since my monitor is 1920 wide, I still get all of the resolution of a "high definition" image, along with 4:3 content filling full-frame.

      I'm actually a little disappointed that my Epson Home Cinema 8350 projector doesn't do 4:3 full-frame.
      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        My solution for wide screen monitors is just to place the task bar on the side of the monitor. That way you basically end up with a 4:3 monitor and don't compromise so much vertical space. For anything other than watching movies, 4:3 actually works a lot better. Sure wide screens allow 2 windows open side by side, but multiple 4:3 monitors enable that much better.
        • by Russ1642 (1087959)
          I just auto-hide the taskbar.
        • by TWX (665546)
          Back in 2000 when Xinerama appeared in the X11R6, I had three 17" tubes set up that way at 3840x1024 total. It looked really cool with a Matrix-inspired screensaver going...
    • I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?

      WUXGA x2 for dual head. Nobody can get by with just one monitor anymore.

      • by darthflo (1095225)

        If you make it large enough, most people will be happy with a single monitor. I'm a sucker for high resolutions and tend to be very wasteful with screen estate, yet just last week put one screen of my triple head setup (30" 2560x1600, flanked with 20" 1200x1600 in portrait mode on each side) into storage and rarely turn on the remaining 20" screen. 30" and WQXGA will do fine for most purposes.

      • by tompaulco (629533)
        My 30" Dell IPS suffices just fine for a single monitor. I find it more useable than my laptop monitor plus 21" external monitor at work.
        Back in the day when 17" was big, It always fascinated me that 17" monitors was enough to run four different applications on Unix, but only one on a Windows machine. We also used to use Hummingbird eXceed to run X windows on the PC, which gave use the ability to run virtual screen sizes that would allow up to a couple of hundred full screens worth that you could pan and s
    • This. My Dell U2410 demands this poll be redone!
  • Yeah yeah. Don't complain about lack of options, but i assume it's not just me running 1920*1080. I'm using a 40 inch TV as my primary monitor. Have been for some time.
    • Re:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by White Flame (1074973) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:13PM (#42466057)

      Just because quite a number of people are stuck using that doesn't make it a favorite.

      • by Psyborgue (699890)
        Yeah. I know. My partner refuses to use 16x9. He insists on 16x10. Me. I don't like having bars when i'm watching native 16x9 media and I don't see why people insist on an extra 120 pixels. Personal preference, I suppose.
        • Re:FHD? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by erice (13380) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:49PM (#42466641) Homepage

          Yeah. I know. My partner refuses to use 16x9. He insists on 16x10. Me. I don't like having bars when i'm watching native 16x9 media and I don't see why people insist on an extra 120 pixels. Personal preference, I suppose.

          It's because they use their monitors for things other than watching movies. For some, watching movies isn't even an important use of their computer. I know, hard to understand. Some people actually like to compose documents, program, surf the web and they are actually willing to put up with little black bars on the screen when watching videos if it will make the other tasks more productive. Weird.

          • by jedidiah (1196)

            None of that is hindered by not having a 4:3 monitor.

            There are these things called "windows". Perhaps you've heard of them?

            • by radish (98371)

              It's not the aspect ratio (I personally prefer widescreen) but the number of pixels. The weird thing about those "windows" you mention is that you can get more of them on the screen the higher the resolution. Personally, dual 2560x1440 is nice and works fine for video :)

              • by fatphil (181876)
                > 2560x1440 is nice and works fine for video

                Nonsense. All my CIF-resolution videos look like tiny postage stamps on it.

                Pixels are just the new GHz.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:46PM (#42465729)

    One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I'd prefer it if we only used the term "resolution" to express "x pixels per unit length" or "x*y pixels per unit area."

      Calling screen dimensions "resolution" was a mistake. It's high time this wrong was put right! You'd do it for Randolph Scott.

      • I'd prefer it if we only used the term "resolution" to express "x pixels per unit length" or "x*y pixels per unit area."
        Calling screen dimensions "resolution" was a mistake.

        In a way, you're right. Unfortunately, makers of laptops and cellphones are following your advice, and stating only the diagonal dimension of a screen in inches with no mention of pixels. Often not even the acronym is supplied, or it is buried in tiny print or a misused acronym is given (e.g. laptop makers using WUXGA to refer to FHD displays). This is clearly even worse, as I value dimensions in pixels at least as much as dimensions in inches.

        At home, our laptops are 17" WUXGA (1920x1200) and 18" FHD (1

      • RANDO-OLPH SCOTT!
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I had no idea what most of these referred to.
      It turns out the 1280x1024 CRT I've been using since 2004 is known as "SXGA".
      Like I'm going to remember that.

    • One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

      Indeed. I'm not aware of any real reason to use these "WHUXGA" type of acronyms. It probably has been just dragged as a tradition. Synonyms for common resolutions like 1920x1080 being called as "full HD" are fine though.

    • by Dogtanian (588974) on Friday January 04, 2013 @10:19AM (#42474731) Homepage

      One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

      Amen; I don't know what any of them mean either (half of them sound like remote provinces in China) and- more importantly- I don't care. Acronyms like that may have served a purpose 20 years ago, when there were only a few standard resolutions, but there's no point in trying to remember the number that exist nowadays [wikipedia.org]. Really, I may be a geek, but I've still got better things to do with my time than trying to memorise what WSXGA+ means. Who gives a toss?- just tell me the resolution!

      Is it just me, or do the polls nowadays come across as a bit soulless and contrived, as if they've been put together by a corporate employee self-consciously trying to appeal to geeks rather than a Taco-like true geek? Take this one; it's like they got the "like to laugh at their own geekiness knowing obscure acronyms" aspect of geek culture, but it doesn't really get there because it doesn't have any depth (e.g. an "in-joke" option that a geek would get or a subtle reference that not everyone would get but those who did would be like "I see what you did there") and ultimately most geeks *don't* have an autistic interest in caring about monotonous acronyms.

      Also, as others commented, they should have realised that true geeks would have spotted that they missed out the relatively common 1920x1080 resolution altogether. :-)

    • I understood the question as "Which one of these random acronyms do you think rolls of the tongue the nicest?"

    • by tompaulco (629533)
      I agree. I thought I was going to need to turn in my geek card because I didn't recognize many of those acronyms. I tend to run whatever computer I am using at the moment at whatever highest resolution it will support. I guess I like my 30" Dell IPS best, it handles 2560 by 1600.
  • WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Captain Spam (66120) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @03:51PM (#42465795) Homepage

    Okay, I know 1920x1200 8:5 (16:10) displays "lost" once everyone was tricked into drooling over "HD picture size zomg!", but damnit, I really don't feel right buying a NEW, supposedly top-of-the-line monitor that has worse resolution than my laptop from eight or so years ago in college. Sadly, my choices are dwindling...

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      This is the right resolution, not this stupid 1920x1080.

    • by Psyborgue (699890)
      It's 120 vertical lines of resolution. Personally, I don't think that's too bad. Plus, I watch a lot of media and don't like black bars. Especially in the dark, it's distracting as the back-light bleeds through.
      • Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Insightful)

        by yourlord (473099) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:24PM (#42467297) Homepage

        That's all well and good if all you use your computer for is media consumption, but I use my computer to do work. My workstation has a 1920x1200 monitor. My TV is 1920x1080. I don't want to use a TV for my monitor.

        • by DarkOx (621550)

          I was in agreement with you when the affordable choices were 1280x800 or 1366x768. The way most UIs are structured 768 vertical lines is rather limiting.

          At 1920x1080 though I feel I have about as much screen real-estate as I can make comfortable use of on a single display. Text and widgets are just to tiny on a monitor much smaller than 20" and beyond 23" I find I am physically turning my head to see everything or sitting so far back its all to tiny to use again. 1080 vertical lines is about the limit of

    • Re:WUXGA (Score:5, Informative)

      by radish (98371) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:17PM (#42467155) Homepage

      2560x1440 IPS panels are available on eBay (imported from Korea) for ~$350 shipped to the US. They're awesome - enjoy :)

      • by cbhacking (979169)

        $299.90, DHL express shipped (two days after it left the seller it was at my door). It's beautiful hardware, too. Pretty bare-bones - the only input is dual-link DVI, for example - but for what I paid, it's a good deal.

        It bothers me that the resolution is called "WQHD", though. Not because the acronym is weird or hard to remember, but because anything that wants to call itself "widescreen quad high definition" should have a *really* good resolution... but for some reason, 1280x720 is technically considered

    • by treeves (963993)

      16:10 is the closest aspect ratio to the golden ratio. I know that's geeky reason to like it, and the real reason is I just like it, not the knowledge that it's (a+b)/a = a/b = (1+sqrt(5)) / 2 , but it's another reason.

  • Alphabet soup (Score:5, Informative)

    by Freddybear (1805256) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @04:00PM (#42465879)

    Wikipedia to the rescue:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard [wikipedia.org]

  • I dusted off the old Amiga 1200 for some holiday nostalgia.
  • by sanosuke001 (640243) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:14PM (#42467105)
    But seriously; QWXGA, WQHD, or WQXGA was the one I selected but QWXGA != WQHD != WQXGA ffs. Why lump differing aspect ratios together? put the 16:9's together (QWXGA = 2048x1152, WQHD = 256x1440) and the 16:10's together (QWXGA = 2560x1600, WUXGA = 1920x1200). I'd take WUXGA over WQHD any day. Two 30" Dell 2560x1600's at work and two 27" 1920x1200's at home. I hate 16:9 so much... oh, and our dual 4K rear projector for demos/presentations at 15 feet diagonal is badass :P (though, 7680x2160 is 32:9 /cry)
  • WHUXGA (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Nethemas the Great (909900) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @05:58PM (#42467777)
    No substitutes, 7680x4800 [wikipedia.org] or nothing.
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      I was hoping 4k monitors would become affordable this year. Everything else is just a stop-gap until we get to twice full HD for pixel perfect 2x scaling.

      NHK has said they are going to ignore 3D and 4k, going directly to 8k, but it will take another 8 years. I really hope it doesn't slow down the adoption of 4k though.

  • Mine is: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 03, 2013 @06:32PM (#42468265)

    My new favorite resolution is: WXZOMGWTFBBQGX

  • by Zinho (17895) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @06:50PM (#42468501) Journal

    I'm voting for "some other resolution entirely", because I'm hoping either QFHD (4K, 3840x2160) or UHD (8K, 7680x4320) will start being mass-manufactured on a large enough scale to drive down costs on high-resolution computer monitors. I'm earning a (-1, redundant) mod here, but it bugs me that ever since 1080p HDTVs (FHD) came out I could get 1920x1080 monitors for dirt cheap, but a second monitor to match my WUXGA (1920x1200) monitor is more expensive due to economies of scale.

    Personally, I don't mind too much a 16:9 ratio, I just want more pixels on screen. So my new years' wish is that the marketers are successful at scamming the TV-buying populace into upgrading to 2x or 4x their current resolution so my next monitor upgrade will be both cheap and an upgrade...

  • by uigrad_2000 (398500) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @07:48PM (#42469169) Homepage Journal

    I was confused about how these were categorized. Eventually, I came to realize the categories are essentially by size. How lame.

    VGA, SVGA, WSVGA = 300kP, 468.75 kP, 600kP

    XGA, XGA+, WXGA = 768kP, 972kP, 960kP

    HD+, UXGA, WSXGA+ = 1406.25kP, 1875kP, ~1723kP

    QWXGA, WQHD, WQXGA = 2304kP, 3600kP, 4000kP

    I'm using "kP" (kiloPixel) as 1024 pixels.

    • I make embedded electronics. I can communicate a lot of information to my customers with a single LED. Ok, I've actually got 8 LEDs on the product, but they're far more effective than trying to incorporate a LCD screen into the product.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        Depends on the product. I also make embedded electronic devices and LCDs have the advantage of requiring a lot less power than LEDs while being able to convey a great deal more information. The choice is more about the space needed for an LCD vs. LED and the need to be viewable under various lighting conditions.

        We just had some samples of ePaper displays come through. Zero energy to maintain the display is amazing for battery powered devices.

  • My other *kind* of resolution, is to shoot any talking head on my monitor, who uses the term "Financial Cliff" again, and again, and again . . .

    Does anyone know if there are bullet-proof monitors . . . ? Otherwise, this is going to get to be quite expensive.

  • A little help (Score:4, Informative)

    by BuypolarBear (2713397) on Thursday January 03, 2013 @11:57PM (#42471459)

    640x480, 800x600, or (1024x576 or 1024x600)
    1024x768, 1152x864, or 1280x768
    1600x900, 1600x1200, or 1680x1050
    2048x1152, 2560x1440, or 2560x1600
    A different resolution
    A poor substitute for the quirky Cowboy Neal option

  • VGA, SVGA, or WSVGA XGA, XGA+, or WXGA HD+, UXGA, or WSXGA+ QWXGA, WQHD, or WQXGA

    What in the world do they mean? Why are the manufacturers so afraid to tell me the real specs (in pixels) of their monitors?

    .
    imo, the marketeers are intentionally trying to create confusion in the marketplace in order to sell monitors of inferior capability for inflated prices..

    Why else would anyone create a bunch of acronyms that no one understands, and use those acronyms to describe the capability of monitors?

  • by j741 (788258) on Friday January 04, 2013 @01:47AM (#42472315) Journal

    Well, because the 3.5" screen on my current (and now obsolete) phone has a resolution of 960x640, and I expect my next ~35" desk monitor and ~70" wall-mounted monitor to have a similar number of pixels-per-inch, that puts my expectation somewhere around 9600x6400 for the desk monitor, and 19200x12800 for the wall-mounted monitor. Oh, and don't forget to improve the color-depth too; might as well put that at 64-bits per pixel while we're at it. Bring on the 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp. !

    • Have you given any thought to the video hardware that would be required to drive that display? The memory requirements are manageable, but it would take a 14ghz signal to actually draw the screen in a non-interlaced fashion @ 60hz (if I understand things correctly, and I probably don't). The memory requirements would be a bit more modest at a mere 2gb for a flat picture map. And trying to play even relatively simple 3d games would have framerates of less than 1 on even the best video hardware available to

    • Bring on the 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp. !

      Yeah, we can call that one WUXQVHDGA++64®© or some other nonsense like that.

    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      It sounds like you are talking about the iPhone's screen, a fairly average phone screen these days that comes in at 128ppcm. The currently highest available mobile resolution is the Nexus 10, also around 120ppcm. A typical desktop PC monitor is around 36ppcm, so mobile screens are about 3.5x better.

      Having said that one of the advantages of a desktop screen is that everything is bigger, so a mere 2x increase in resolution would be fine with me. Hopefully this year 4k will become affordable.

  • My resolution for the new year is the 7360 x 4912 that my camera [nikon.com] captures. Display resolution is all well and good, but you've got to get something to show.
  • by TCPhotography (1245814) on Friday January 04, 2013 @05:32AM (#42473265)

    Primary is FHD, secondary is SXGA. When combined with the existence of the windows task bar, it's about the same as a 3200*1024 screen. I'd love to move to something with higher vertical resolution, but it's not in the cards (credit or video) at the moment.

  • by mvar (1386987) on Friday January 04, 2013 @08:05AM (#42473811)
    or CGA. Now get off my lawn
  • by Misagon (1135) on Friday January 04, 2013 @08:10AM (#42473841)

    The poll is for number of pixels on the screen, not resolution. That would have had a linear relationship to resolution if we were still using 14" CRT monitors that needed as much desk space as was available on a typical desk. These days, screens are flat, need a lot less desk space and come in many different sizes and resolutions.

    Resolution is measured in Pixels per Inch.
    I think that for most desktop apps on Windows and Linux, about 104 PPI is the sweet spot for a desktop monitor. If programs were more scalable, I wouldn't mind going higher.

    As to screen size, a bigger desktop monitor is always better.
    I am currently using a dual-screen setup at work using MS Windows, but I would have been very content with just one if MS Windows had had virtual desktops like X window managers and MacOS.

    • by repetty (260322)

      Out of several hundred comments, you seem to be the only person who know what the hell he's talking about.

      There are geeks and their are posers.... God bless you, geek!

  • Can someone explain how these are grouped at all? I don't see any pattern at all. QSXGA is what I'd like to use but it pretty much doesn't exist. (Death to wide screen. Give me 1:1 even!)

  • by Issarlk (1429361)
    I'm using the very exotic - and unheard of by the poll creator - SXGA resolution.
  • by Cito (1725214)

    my 3 screens for last couple years are LG Flatron W2061TQ HD+ 1600x900 native resolution 2ms refresh rate

    and I love them :)

    love the 2 ms refresh on them, even running a game on the 3 screens, turning fast I see no tearing at all

  • IBM Monochrome Display Adapter, damn young people...
    Get off my lawn.
    My first IBM compatible, which was my 4th computer, had MDA. Later I upgraded to a Hercules Graphics Card.
    Nothing beats MDA, or Hercules, for pure text beauty.
  • 1920x1200 in glorious 16:10, as God intended. (And 1536x2048 on my tablet in glorious 3:4, also as God intended.)

  • QWXGA+ (2880x1800) (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jbolden (176878) on Friday January 04, 2013 @03:46PM (#42478985) Homepage

    Got a rMBP this summer mainly for the speed. I have a wonderful 27" monitor that sits on my desk entirely unused. I can't believe how much the visual quality matters, and how much I love this extra density in terms of clarity.

  • We have a lot of display china, so my resolution is to build a hanging wall cabinet that will display it well. Seems much more interesting than trying to figure out all of those crazy acronyms.

  • I've got a dozen screens that range in size from 1.8" to 40" so there's no one resolution that's right.

    DPI and aspect ratio seems like better measures.

  • by psm321 (450181)

    Lots of pixels and a proper 4:3 aspect ratio.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#HUXGA_.286400.C3.974800.29 [wikipedia.org]

  • by DoofusOfDeath (636671) on Friday January 04, 2013 @08:04PM (#42482877)

    CGA [wikipedia.org] resolutions should be good enough for anyone.

  • 347. Stop picking on the /. polls.

    I know I'm going to break that one! Wait, I think I just did. Damn! That's why I make so many. ;)

  • by smugfunt (8972) on Friday January 04, 2013 @11:16PM (#42484635)

    Gimme numbers not this alphabetti spaghetti.
    Specifically: gimme 1920x1360.
    root 2:1 - nothing else adds up.

  • by ErikTheRed (162431) on Friday January 04, 2013 @11:46PM (#42484819) Homepage

    2880x1800 FTW.

  • Vector diplays on some old test equipment are fantastic, just like how pen plotter plots still have something special going for them.

  • Hercules Graphics 720x348. Now get off my lawn.
  • ...and now if only I didn't have to deal with the (recent!) bugs in KDE4 and various video drivers that don't respect xrandr --fb ... --panning ... or xorg.conf/Display/Monitor/Virtual ... !

"How do I love thee? My accumulator overflows."

 



Forgot your password?
Working...