Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

bink · Jun 16, 2002, 10:36 PM

I started the thread, "So tell me, why not an emac." My main reason for considering the emac was being able to use the 800x600 screen resolution without problems.Cleaning of the screen and dead pixels are a distant second concern compared to the resolution.

What are your thoughts on this screen resolution on the new iMac with the LCD screen?

thoughts appreciated.....Rich

bink · Jun 16, 2002, 10:42 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by bink:
I started the thread, "So tell me, why not an emac." My main reason for considering the emac was being able to use the 800x600 screen resolution without problems.Cleaning of the screen and dead pixels are a distant second concern compared to the resolution.

What are your thoughts on this screen resolution on the new iMac with the LCD screen?

thoughts appreciated.....Rich<hr /></blockquote>Darn, I did not make this very clear. I am asking about the 800x600 resolution on the iMac screen. Can it be used as the main resolution or is it too messy?

Mac Zealot · Jun 16, 2002, 11:17 PM

It definately isn't as sharp as 1024x768, and HONESTLY, it looks so huge I wouldn't really care to go much lower.

Chris Grande · Jun 16, 2002, 11:49 PM

Any reason why you whould want to run at 800x600?

RBattin · Jun 17, 2002, 01:00 AM

How about educational software that runs in Classic like Reader Rabbit, Accelerated Reader or Oregon Trail? They want to run at 640x480. Is that possible with acceptable quality?

D'Espice · Jun 17, 2002, 06:05 AM

It ain't definitely not as sharp as 1024x768, I wouldn't recommend it. It certainly is acceptable, but it'll look way better on a CRT

Vanquish · Jun 17, 2002, 06:23 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> How about educational software that runs in Classic like Reader Rabbit, Accelerated Reader or Oregon Trail? They want to run at 640x480. Is that possible with acceptable quality?
<hr /></blockquote>--> buy an eMac, the CRT is way better for this reason.

About LCDs: it's not really recommended the run these at a lower than the optimal resolution, very low quality IMO. But why would you want to run at 800x600 ?, 1024x768 is already too big for me (especially with OSX)

CubeWannaB · Jun 17, 2002, 05:44 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Grande:
Any reason why you whould want to run at 800x600?<hr /></blockquote>Games. I know that the geforce 2MX isn't a good gaming video card, but it can make some serious work of newer games still. At 800 x 600, I mean.

Mac Zealot · Jun 17, 2002, 05:46 PM

It seems fine to me to run games at lower resolutions, I do this with quake 3 becauase I'm too lazy to up the settings.

driven · Jun 17, 2002, 05:51 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by CubeWannaB:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Chris Grande:
Any reason why you whould want to run at 800x600?<hr /></blockquote>Games. I know that the geforce 2MX isn't a good gaming video card, but it can make some serious work of newer games still. At 800 x 600, I mean.<hr /></blockquote>I actually find the GeForce 2 MX to be quite adequate at gaming.
It sure beats what we had in the "old days" for sure.

Chris Grande · Jun 17, 2002, 10:08 PM

Well, the slight blur you get won't be that bad for games, (poor mans AA?). I whouldn't try using for anything that makes you read small type.