1280x1024 vs. 1280x960

The mention of flat panels with a native resolution of 1280x1024 prompted me to throw this together.

Why 1280x1024 and not 1280x960?

640x480 = 1.33 ratio width to height
800x600 = 1.33 w/h
1024x768 = 1.33 w/h
1280x960 = 1.33 w/h
1280x1024 = 1.25 w/h!
1600x1200 = 1.33 w/h

Every other normal resolution is the same ratio why is 1280x1024 fairly common and used rather than 1280x960? Why are some flat panels supporting this bizarre oddball resolution? It doesn’t seem to make sense. It seems that scaling at a constant ratio would be a good thing how did this abomination get in there?

Sorry this is kind of a pet peeve of mine.

– Xaroc

This is actually a pet peeve of mine, too. 1280x1024 is a resolution common in the workstation side of graphics, back in the CRT days. I dunno why it became the defacto res for flat panels, except possibly that early flat panels were more for workstations than desktop PCs.

Now, what I really want are fast response time, 16x10 or 16x9 aspect ratio displays (1600x1024). There are 16x10 displays, but they have terrible response times.

Probably something technical and psychological at the same time, 1024 is a known pixel range while 960 is not; 1024 is also the result of an exponent of 2. Why that matters I have no idea.

I’m sure there are other more technical reasons… oh well. Why do hot dogs come in packages of six and buns in eight? (or maybe other way around).

— Alan

That’s odd, my 1800FP dell 18" flat panel only supports 1280x1024 and 1280x768. There is no 1280x960.

It’s probably marketing. “960 is so close to 1000… can’t we do something to get it higher so people think they’re getting a better value?”

“Why sure, let’s do 1280x1024.”

“Excellent! That’s 10% better!”

Ok my question is why would you want that odd res as native for a flat panel? That is a 1.5625 ratio. I do run my 2nd machine’s monitor at 1600x1024 but that is a carryover from running a 2nd DAoC account in a window while simultanously having the TV software running.

– Xaroc

I run my desktop CRT at work at 1152x864.

At home, I use 1024x768 on my CRT.

For some reason, at work, 1024x768 looks too big, while at home, 1152x864 looks too small.

I might consider higher resolutions if I had a better monitor.

1152x864 is the same 1.33 ratio as the rest of the proper resolutions.

– Xaroc

Yeah, that’s one thing that’s keeping me from going to an LCD for my main screen. I run at 1280x960. 1600x1200 is too small and doesn’t offer any advantages for what I do, but I hate what 1280x1024 does to pixel ratios when I’m doing Photoshop & stuff.

[quote=“Xaroc”]

Ok my question is why would you want that odd res as native for a flat panel? That is a 1.5625 ratio. I do run my 2nd machine’s monitor at 1600x1024 but that is a carryover from running a 2nd DAoC account in a window while simultanously having the TV software running.

– Xaroc[/quote]

Well, I also want widescreen gaming to become more common, too. 16x10 or 16x9 matches HDTV resolutions. Standard TV is 4:3,
as are most standard computer monitors. So 16:9 or 16:10 would
make a great widescreen resolution.

Strictly speaking, it should be 16x9 (1.78:1), which actually matches HD aspect ratios. I happen to be running a Sony WDM-900 at 1600x1024, and I can get two pages side-by-side – and readable – on a screen without having a second display.

I run my laptop at 1920x1200 (Inspiron 8500), which is 1.6:1, and the laptop is fairly widescreen, doesn’t distort regular 1.33:1 resolutions very much at all, and works pretty well in most instances (also use big icons).

— Alan