undefined | Better HN

story

0 pointsmichaelmrose5y ago0 comments

>1366x768 is currently by far the most common resolution on PCs

According to steam 10.9% of users are running at that resolution. Only 4% are running at worse and 85% are running at higher resolution mostly at 1080p at a whopping 65%. Calling it the second most common is true but deceptive is it just means that its so old that there are so many different better choices that people are spread out over the many and varied better choices.

https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/Steam-Hardware-Softw...

>i didn't want the blurry mess that a higher resolution would have

https://linustechtips.com/main/topic/285860-720p-looks-bad-o...

If you mean that your apu is so weak that it can't do more than 720p and this would look bad at 1080p you are correct but that seems like a uniquely bad choice given that one would logically want to either get an actual gpu or give up on gaming and get a screen worth using instead of picking a compromise that is the worst of both worlds.

Regarding scalling 800x600 scales evenly to a 1920x1200 with black bars on the sides. 1152×900 scales to 1600x900 in the same fashion. You can also run the game in a window and avoid having to match it up evenly.

>1366x768 on a monitor (as opposed to laptop) makes for very sharp icons, fonts (after you disable antialiasing) for everything (as opposed to using a hidpi monitor where some apps look crisp and others look either too tiny or blurred from scaling).

I think your eyesight is bad.

Your PPI: 68 Common Resolution for your screen size: 95 Best in class: 191

0 comments

badsectoracula5y ago

> According to steam 10.9% of users are running at that resolution.

Which is why right after the part you quoted and apparently ignored, i wrote "and the second most common on gaming PCs according to Steam". Gaming PCs are more likely to have higher resolution, but not every PC is a gaming PC. Statcounter.com has 1366x768 above 1920x1080.

Also 10.9% of Steam's user is still around 10 million active users, which is a lot of people.

> but that seems like a uniquely bad choice

That is your opinion, i find it a great choice and i like my monitor.

> given that one would logically want to either get an actual gpu

I have an actual GPU nowadays.

> or give up on gaming

I do not think you are in position to tell anyone give up anything.

> and get a screen worth using

I find my monitor worth using.

> instead of picking a compromise that is the worst of both worlds.

That is your opinion that i disagree with.

> Regarding scalling 800x600 scales evenly to a 1920x1200 with black bars on the sides.

1920x1200 is not 16:9 which will cause either black bars or stretched UIs on actually new titles and videos, i wouldn't personally buy a non-16:9 monitor these days. Also 800x600 looks fine on my 1366x768 monitor centered (even if a bit smaller image) with 1:1 pixels.

> 1152×900 scales to 1600x900 in the same fashion.

Pretty much no game where you have to use fixed resolutions (mostly 2D games) uses 1152x900. Earlier 3D games work at 1366x768 by centering 1024x768 but almost all of them have workarounds to work at higher 4:3 resolutions (when i used a 1920x1080 monitor i often ran older 3D games at 1440x1080).

> You can also run the game in a window and avoid having to match it up evenly.

If i had Windows 7 or using Linux, perhaps, but with Windows 8+ and the forced compositor that adds input lag i avoid running games in a window.

> I think your eyesight is bad.

Yes it is, which is why i sit close to the monitor so i can see stuff (and the reason i prefer smaller monitors). But i can clearly see the pixels, which is what i mean with "sharp" here.

> Best in class: 191

Subjective and it has all the issues with scaling and blurring i mentioned in my last message.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse