|
i don't like thing!
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
well have you considered that maybe you're wrong?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:49
|
|
|
deep impact on vhs posted:well have you considered that maybe you're wrong? hell no!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:hell no! you should consider it, op. maybe the true answer... is somewhere in the middle...
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 21:52
|
|
|
the only thing worse is 1024x600 lol netbooks
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:02
|
|
|
1440x900 adequacy
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
I once had a thinkpad with a 14" 1400x1050 screen. that was pretty pro.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:11
|
|
|
Janitor Prime posted:1440x900 adequacy thats not adaquate
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
i did some testing on this and it turns out that your mirror is 1366x768 and you're just getting fooled by the reflection
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
whats your new years resolution OP
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:22
|
|
|
don't sign your thread titles
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
5120 x 2880 crew sup you know how much 5k content is out there? uhh, lemme know
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:56
|
|
|
SO DEMANDING posted:the only thing worse is 1024x600 
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
finally someone speaks out
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
i just now realized that my iphone 6 has a higher screen resolution than the old netbook i had in 2009, lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
we need more pees
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:22
|
|
|
SO DEMANDING posted:i just now realized that my iphone 6 has a higher screen resolution than the old netbook i had in 2009, lmao my phone has a WQHD (2560 by 1440 pixels) resolution screen at 518 ppi.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Smythe posted:my phone has a WQHD (2560 by 1440 pixels) resolution screen at 518 ppi. probably penistile
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Smythe posted:thats not adaquate not terrible for a 13" laptop
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:11
|
|
|
Sniep posted:5120 x 2880 crew sup is there imacs with better gpus @ that resolution because they all look like they run at like 8fps I tried playing 4K video on one and it basically melted down 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
SO DEMANDING posted:the only thing worse is 1024x600 oh lol yeah i remember having to fight a few of those super cheapshit netbooks at the school district "but they were dooooonated, can't we find some use for them??" huge, huge lols when the goddamn display settings window was literally too tall for the screen
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 00:23
|
|
|
my new cheapo lappy will be 1280 x 800 and im ok with that but just loving lol at how many awful machines are out there with thirteen sixty six. double lol when it's marketed as 'high def!!!' lomarf
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
SO DEMANDING posted:the only thing worse is 1024x600 i owned a netbook and while that screen was horrid it was a pro as heck platform for old dos games 
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Moist von Lipwig posted:is there imacs with better gpus @ that resolution because they all look like they run at like 8fps I tried playing 4K video on one and it basically melted down imacs are loving retarded and come with the worst OS possible, Mac OSX.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
my screen is 2880x1800
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:i don't like thing! It's bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Smythe posted:imacs are loving retarded and come with the worst OS possible, Mac OSX. agreed smythe just wondering how severe the fail aids was
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2016 23:58
|
|
|
Janitor Prime posted:not terrible for a 13" laptop i have two 1440x900 monitors at work. it's pretty bad for 21" or whatever they are.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 00:33
|
|
|
I used to have a tee vee that was 1366x768
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
Silver Alicorn posted:I used to have a tee vee that was 1366x768 News flash: it was bad!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 01:35
|
|
|
I don't even own a television now.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 02:04
|
|
|
i own a TV but just have apple TV hooked up
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:13
|
|
|
i used to have a laptop with 1366x768 and it was torture
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
basically anything below 1680x1050 (or 1600 x 900 i guess if you have fail tv screen instead of real work screen) is unusable
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
1368x768 supremacy, you really see the difference in those two pixels! Anyways the resolution is adequate for 10" tablets etc, but not suitable for 15".
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:48
|
|
|
lol a 10 inch tablet. my mobile telephone with a 5 inch screen has a resolution of 1920x1080. 1366 * 768 would be adequate for the three-inch "touchscreen" on a smart oven or thermostat or other internet of thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
Rosoboronexport posted:Anyways the resolution is adequate for 10" tablets etc, but not suitable for 15". Wrongo, gently caress face! It's bad!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
maniacdevnull posted:Wrongo, gently caress face! It's bad!
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:14
|
|
|
5k supremacy
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 06:47 |
|
|
there are no 5k monitors, only 2.8K
|
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2016 16:49
|
|