Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

swiz · Mar 21, 2004, 05:18 PM

I am wondering so I know what the best size desktops to include with themes are.

spiky_dog · Mar 21, 2004, 05:24 PM

you left out a huge category, 1280x1024. all 17"-19" lcds should be running at that res, including apple's own.

cmove · Mar 21, 2004, 05:29 PM

1680x1050 on my iMac 20"

Cerbero · Mar 21, 2004, 05:32 PM

1280x960 is what I use on my eMac.

d4nth3m4n · Mar 21, 2004, 05:33 PM

i never understood why there wasnt just a huge one and a huge widescreen one. setting a desktop to scale is not that hard of a thing to do. i run 1600x desks on my ibook (1024x) all the time, i dont lose anything.

am i missing something here?

COBRAHQ · Mar 21, 2004, 05:37 PM

I run 1440x900... not in the poll. T_T

Love widescreen, helps with all those damn toolbars.

codywalton · Mar 21, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by spiky_dog:
you left out a huge category, 1280x1024. all 17"-19" lcds should be running at that res, including apple's own.

ditto... mine's a sony though...

MetalSnake · Mar 21, 2004, 05:52 PM

1600x1200 on a 21" CRT
what should I vote? It�s smaller than 1680 but bigger than 1050

swiz · Mar 21, 2004, 06:08 PM

I knew I was gonna miss some major ones.
I just listed the common ones fromy me 20" LCD and my 15" Powerbook.

mac15 · Mar 21, 2004, 06:18 PM

1024x768 here, damn 15" imacs

cloudaj · Mar 21, 2004, 06:20 PM

im running 1280 x 960 on my emac too, though I don't think that resolution is all too common...i haven't seen it on a monitor up until i got this emac, heh.

keston · Mar 21, 2004, 06:44 PM

1280x1024 on my 19" Samsung LCD at home.
1280x1024 on my 20" Apple CRT at work.
1280x1024 on my 21" Viewsonic CRT at work.

good res., not too big, not too small

.

fireside · Mar 21, 2004, 06:49 PM

1280x854 - dig the 'book

Luca Rescigno · Mar 21, 2004, 06:58 PM

Weird options... nothing for any 4:3 ratios higher than 1024x768 (such as 1152x864, 1280x960, or 1600x1200), and yet there are options for 640x480 and smaller, which is basically the realm of people with 13" Performa monitors and Mac Pluses.

Meh, I'll just vote "Bigger" because I run a 17" CRT at 1344x1008. It's a weird resolution, but it's great because it gives you about as much screen area as 1280x1024, but it uses a 4:3 ratio instead of a 5:4 ratio. That way, stuff doesn't get squished out of proportion. Basically, when I get desktops, I look for REALLY BIG ones that are not widescreen.

Catfish_Man · Mar 21, 2004, 07:04 PM

1344x1008

digitaljames · Mar 21, 2004, 07:20 PM

1680x1050 Cinema
1280x854 Powerbook
1280x1024 Viewsonic
1600x1200 Planar

I need em all.....

BrianC · Mar 21, 2004, 07:47 PM

1280x854

w i d e r is better

bwahahax · Mar 21, 2004, 07:58 PM

1280x1024

NetworkShadow · Mar 21, 2004, 08:10 PM

1280x1024

HytestA · Mar 21, 2004, 08:50 PM

1280 x 1024

Jaos · Mar 21, 2004, 08:52 PM

1280x1024

Angus_D · Mar 21, 2004, 09:31 PM

1280x1024 on the G4.
1024x768 on this 12" PB.

themarvelous3 · Mar 21, 2004, 09:37 PM

1280x1024

19" something or other. i dont know what it is anymore. i got it from my roomate and i painted it silver and glued an apple logo (also painted silver) from the casing of an LCII on it so it'd match the computer.

zachs · Mar 21, 2004, 09:47 PM

PowerBook with 1280 x 854 resolution. My iPod's screen is smaller 640x480, though.

Frisbee · Mar 21, 2004, 10:49 PM

Another 1280x1024. Pisses me the hell off that there are so many people with this ratio (5/4) yet there are almost no wallpapers with it. I upgraded to my G4 with this 17" from an old iMac G3 graphite running 800x600. I remember, I felt this screen was so big... now I stare longingly at a 23" apple display... ah, if only...

NetworkShadow · Mar 21, 2004, 11:12 PM

I so want an LCD... stupid CRTs.

Holigen · Mar 22, 2004, 12:17 AM

1024x768... iMac Flat-Panel

I might get a new iMac or even a G5 this summer however.

angelmb · Mar 22, 2004, 07:49 AM

1440*900 cinematic PowerBook

nanovivid · Mar 22, 2004, 08:09 AM

1440x900

badidea · Mar 22, 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by MetalSnake:
1600x1200 on a 21" CRT
what should I vote? It�s smaller than 1680 but bigger than 1050

Same here!

MacDog · Mar 22, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by swiz:
I am wondering so I know what the best size desktops to include with themes are.

1600x1200 is extremely common for LCDs NOT made by Apple.

bOOzo · Mar 22, 2004, 10:58 AM

I bet I have the weirdest resolution - 1344 x 1008!
I used to have 1280x1024, but then in 10.3.x I noticed this new resolution that uses the same Hz (75) and has a correct 4:3 ratio, which 1280x1024 does not. So it's great for me.
I too wish I could afford a widescreen lcd though..

But I would say that the best resolution to make desktops in is 1600x1024, if the desktop does not suffer from having the edges cropped on a 4:3 monitor.

I did a similar poll on my homepage, but focused on the ratio:

lenox · Mar 22, 2004, 11:44 AM

1600x1200, and
1440x900.

OwlBoy · Mar 22, 2004, 12:59 PM

Man, 1024x768, I really want a bigger monitor.

I am drawn like a moth to a light bulb every time I see the 23inch ACD at CompUSA.

-Owl

wibs · Mar 22, 2004, 03:42 PM

woo, i've got the biggest di... screen!

I alternate between 2048x1600 and 1792x1440. I guess that means I can safely be ignored for this poll.

Luca Rescigno · Mar 22, 2004, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by bOOzo:
I bet I have the weirdest resolution - 1344 x 1008!
I used to have 1280x1024, but then in 10.3.x I noticed this new resolution that uses the same Hz (75) and has a correct 4:3 ratio, which 1280x1024 does not. So it's great for me.
I too wish I could afford a widescreen lcd though.

Ah, I got a little shareware program called DisplayConfigX that allows you to change your resolution to nearly anything possible on the monitor. It allowed me to run my Gateway EV700 at a resolution higher than 1024x768 while keeping a usable refresh rate. On my brand new NEC monitor, I'm running it at 1376x1032 at 87 Hz. I have also run it at 1440x1080 @ 84 Hz, and some higher ones, but the text just gets too squinty at those high resolutions.

So, 1376x1032 for me.

phillryu · Mar 22, 2004, 06:27 PM

Ok, here's stats from MacThemes.net visitor counter:

templetalker · Mar 22, 2004, 06:31 PM

Why not just creat a really GIGANTIC one in normal and then in wide? I think this was addressed above as well? This way everyboy gets pickles and onions on their buns! Cool Dudes!

templetalker · Mar 22, 2004, 06:33 PM

double post, sorry fellas

testnull · Mar 22, 2004, 09:21 PM

Why not just do them in the right aspect ratios? 4:3 for standard resolutions, whatever aspect ratio 1280x1024 is, 16:10 for Cinema / 17" iMac / PowerBook, and 3:2 for 15" PowerBooks. I don't mind using something which is too large if it scales to the right aspect ratio.

LBoogie · Mar 22, 2004, 09:39 PM

Originally posted by d4nth3m4n:
i never understood why there wasnt just a huge one and a huge widescreen one. setting a desktop to scale is not that hard of a thing to do. i run 1600x desks on my ibook (1024x) all the time, i dont lose anything.

am i missing something here?

Agreed
Make a few versions with different aspect ratios let us scale them to whatever screen rez we need. Easier to please everybody that way imho

OwlBoy · Mar 22, 2004, 10:21 PM

Sill question:

To those who say just make the highest res in both aspect ratios:

Won't this use more memory than needed for people on the lower end? Is it not that much of a problem? I know it was a pain in the early days of OS 9, and now I see multi-res downloads all over so I never consider it now.

I think though, that he wants to know from a design aspect.

something in an �ber high res might have the logo appear the desired size at that res, but way too small in the lower end due to scaling.

You would lose detail scaling an image down from the high res to the small, and the designer may choose to crop to enhance detail.

Lots of factors Maybe.

-Owl

lenox · Mar 23, 2004, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by OwlBoy:
Sill question:

To those who say just make the highest res in both aspect ratios:

Won't this use more memory than needed for people on the lower end?

Nope. You aren't going to be using any more memory than your resolution does. For instance, a .jpg with a resolution of 1600x1200 will scale down nicely on, say, a 800x600 desktop and won't take up any more memory than a 800x600 .jpg.

Good point about the loss of details, though. As a designer, I'd probably want to be meticulous and create a custom desktop for each resolution, just to be sure.

NetworkShadow · Mar 23, 2004, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by lenox:
Nope. You aren't going to be using any more memory than your resolution does. For instance, a .jpg with a resolution of 1600x1200 will scale down nicely on, say, a 800x600 desktop and won't take up any more memory than a 800x600 .jpg.

Good point about the loss of details, though. As a designer, I'd probably want to be meticulous and create a custom desktop for each resolution, just to be sure.

Sure is a pain though with the wide range of sizes that people use. A hi-end one and a low-end one for wide and normal might be another idea, instead of making one for each and every res.

FB Eye · Mar 23, 2004, 11:34 AM

1152x870 here...

I've never seen the 1154x768 option on any Macs I've used

Patcarla · Mar 23, 2004, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by FB Eye:
1152x870 here...

I've never seen the 1154x768 option on any Macs I've used

It has to be a typo.. I have a 1152x768 on my tibook

FB Eye · Mar 23, 2004, 12:11 PM

Not a typo:

Patcarla · Mar 23, 2004, 12:37 PM

I was talking about the 1154x768..

dole · Mar 23, 2004, 03:27 PM

1024x768