The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
"squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses

This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
gaming
http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg

As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
that display the less, hence the worse

Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.

So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed

pc games wrote:
> The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
> "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
> ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
> 
> This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
> resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
> gaming
> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg
> 
> As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
> 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
> that display the less, hence the worse
> 
> Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
> best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.
> 
> So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
> Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
> prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
> decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
> using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed

1280x1024 is only suppose to be used for LCDs, since the individual 
pixels are more squarish on LCDs than CRTs. That's why the industry uses it.

"pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1186117242.646673.254660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
> "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
> ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
>
> This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
> resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
> gaming
> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg
>
> As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
> 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
> that display the less, hence the worse
>
> Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
> best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.
>
> So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
> Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
> prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
> decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
> using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed
>
>

That was interesting - something I've wondered about for a while.  Thanks! 

* pc games:

> So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024? Cause the
> PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has prevalence
> over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone decided
> that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when using a
> spreadsheet

Well, you're dumber than bread so I don't expect you to have a clue, but
FYI: SXGA (1280x1024) hasn't been invented for "office/productivity/work
use". It's a very old standard and already was the standard resolution
on most UNIX workstations when PC users still were playing Pacman on
their DOS-based 386 PC.

> and we gamers got screwed

"We" gamers only get screwed by your stupid brabbling. No-one forces you
to use SXGA, especially not if you don't own a flat panel display that
natively uses this resolution.

It's a shame you're consuming oxygen. Really.

Benjamin

"pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1186117242.646673.254660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
> "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
> ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
>
> This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
> resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
> gaming
> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg
>
> As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
> 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
> that display the less, hence the worse

Or displays the same width as a 4:3 but displayes extra hight. 

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:00:42 -0700, pc games <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
>"squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
>ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
>
>This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
>resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
>gaming

Used solely for 4:3 LCD displays which have this default pixel aspect
ratio, even with a 4:3 physical aspect ratio (non-square LCD pixels) .
So to the viewer's eye everything looks correctly proportioned.  Maybe
you should do a little research before posting your next clever
observation. Or better still get a life well away from a computer and
these newsgroups for ever and leave us in peace. You are truly the
resident clown on the usenet gaming newsgroups.

>http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg
>

Still trying to flog the dead-horse ( Alpha Prime ) ?
Trying to not-so-subtly prove that you really bought the game ?

John Lewis

"pc games" <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1186117242.646673.254660@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
> "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
> ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
>
> This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
> resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
> gaming
> http://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-res.jpg
>
> As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
> 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
> that display the less, hence the worse
>
> Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
> best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.
>
> So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
> Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
> prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
> decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
> using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed
>

So use 1280x960 and STFU!

On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 22:00:42 -0700, pc games <pcgamer23708@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
>"squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
>ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses

Wow, it took you this long to realize that? You just bought your first
LCD screen, right? I made this same observation a couple of years ago
when I bought a 17" LCD screen and tried to play games with lower than
1280x1024 resolutions on it.

Anyway, I am not too happy to see practically all gaming-level laptops
nowadays using widescreen screens, as they don't offer anything to
gaming (except problems) and make the laptops bulkier. And it is not
16:9 widescreen that people already know from their TV sets and DVD
movies but some stupid 16:10 hack.

* riku:

> Anyway, I am not too happy to see practically all gaming-level laptops
> nowadays using widescreen screens, as they don't offer anything to
> gaming (except problems) and make the laptops bulkier. And it is not
> 16:9 widescreen that people already know from their TV sets and DVD
> movies but some stupid 16:10 hack.

Yeah, right. Of course you ignore that this "stupid 16:10 hack" is a 
VESA standard for almost 15 years now.

Benjamin

On Aug 2, 10:00 pm, pc games <pcgamer23...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
> "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
> ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
>
> This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
> resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
> gaminghttp://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-r...
>
> As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
> 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
> that display the less, hence the worse
>
> Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
> best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.
>
> So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
> Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
> prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
> decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
> using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed

So, if I play a pirated game or something using STEAM on a 1280 x 1024
resolution, then I'm basically the worst human alive, right?

"Stile4aly" <stile4aly@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1186238260.706194.316820@m37g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
| On Aug 2, 10:00 pm, pc games <pcgamer23...@yahoo.com> wrote:
| > The proof 1280x1024 is the worse resolution for gaming cause it has a
| > "squarish" 5:4 aspect ratio instead of a "rectanglish" 4:3 aspect
| > ratio which any other non-widescreen resolution uses
| >
| > This was taken in the PC Game Alpha Prime using 6 different
| > resolutions to show why 1280x1024 is the worse possible resolution for
| > 
gaminghttp://www.hotlinkfiles.com/pfiles/download/10171/alphaprime-screen-r...
| >
| > As you see even the "smallest" 640x480 is "better" than 1280x1024
| > 1280x1024 (the 4th picture) is the narrowest of them all hence the one
| > that display the less, hence the worse
| >
| > Also another conclusion to take is the wider the aspect ratio the
| > best, so 16:9 the last image in the overall best.
| >
| > So if its worse why the industry decided to use 1280x1024?
| > Cause the PC is mainly for office/productivity/work use so it has
| > prevalence over gaming and in a office/productivity/work usage someone
| > decided that making the screen "taller" should give more "rows" when
| > using a spreadsheet and we gamers got screwed
|
| So, if I play a pirated game or something using STEAM on a 1280 x 1024
| resolution, then I'm basically the worst human alive, right?
|

I think that would officially make you the cyber-antiChrist...  Dooooooooom 
is upon you!  lol 

I used to play at that resolution a few years ago (on a smaller LCD
display than I now use).  Games looked fine to me.  Go figure.  :)

On Mon, 06 Aug 2007 10:32:43 -0700, MakoShark <rspam@millertogo.com>
wrote:

>I used to play at that resolution a few years ago (on a smaller LCD
>display than I now use).  Games looked fine to me. 

> Go figure.  :)

A totally missing capability of our dear friend "pc games"

John Lewis

"John Lewis" <john.dsl@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:46b7dca0.14347591@news.verizon.net...
> A totally missing capability of our dear friend "pc games"
>
> John Lewis


Well, if you are all happy with shitty 5:4 aspect ratio LCD's then why are 
you all buying 16:10 LCD's? I'm old school and am sticking with my 4:3 CRT. 

"Crazy Noddy" <SPAM@BLOCKER.ACTIVE> wrote in message 
news:85kui.337532$LL7.106691@fe08.news.easynews.com...
>
> Well, if you are all happy with shitty 5:4 aspect ratio LCD's then why are 
> you all buying 16:10 LCD's? I'm old school and am sticking with my 4:3 
> CRT.

Everyone is buying widescreen LCDs because soon that will be the only style 
available.

Why are manufacturers pushing widescreen, because it's different, and thus 
it drives sales ('Oh, fancy one of those smart new widescreen thingys - they 
look special'). They'll tell you of course because it suits TV/DVD playback.

But then again, most TV is still in 4:3 format so you just end up with a 
mangled aspect ratio.

But why do most films appear in widescreen? Interestingly it's because films 
were recorded in widescreen format to accommodate the shape of the typical 
cinema. The cinema is in widescreen because they can more easily add seats 
to the sides of the cinema than they can build upwards (and backwards).

Ergonomically speaking, the squarer the screen, the better. Human peripheral 
vision tends to the circular rather than the rectangle. That is, you eyes 
prefer to look at a screen that is as high as it is wide. So 4:3 would be 
preferred.

So in summary, you are being forced to buy a new screen [that is less easy 
on the eyes] because, for over a hundred years, cinema owners have been 
trying to squeeze more people into the audience to rake in the money... 

"CJM" <cjmnews04@REMOVEMEyahoo.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:5hu8k5F3m995qU1@mid.individual.net...
> So in summary, you are being forced to buy a new screen [that is less easy 
> on the eyes] because, for over a hundred years, cinema owners have been 
> trying to squeeze more people into the audience to rake in the money...
>

Yea, I've heard that theory before and I am not sure if I believe it or not. 
But it does sound believable because if widescreen was the preferred format 
then why don't photographers use it more often? They only use it sometimes 
for panoramic views. Some medium format cameras have a completely square 
format, or close to it. 

well for 1 thing i am now at nice 3:2 lcd and am using opera mini in
reference to topic i only can say lol and more lol :) your mentioned
settings are my nr.2 after 800x600 and that is only because i prefer
performance over quality in some games if you really would play games
not search reasons why you lose you would win more often and would not
search for global conspiracies against gamers    ... yet i must say
that i prefer crt over lcd ( 1.cheaper , 2. lives longer )