I recently came across a thread on a random forum where it called out to the members to post a screenshot of their desktop to show off their wallpaper graphics.

What was interesting wasn’t the graphics per sé but rather the screen resolution for most of the screen shots shown, which happened to be 1024×768. It showed up so much that a few commented on it saying something to the effect of, "Why are all you people using such low resolutions?"

Want to know the real kicker? These people posting screen shots were all in their late teens, 20s and 30s. This was not 40+ territory whatsoever.

So why is it that so many people still use 1024×768?

There’s actually a few good answers.

If you’re on a netbook, the vast majority of them have screens that are a native resolution of 1024×576 or 1024×600.

A teen may be using his parent’s computer where the parent prefers the resolution at something he or she can read, and that’s usually 1024×768.

The really interesting crowd are the twenty and thirty-somethings. I fall into this crowd because I’m 34. I wear eyeglasses, but my primary 20-inch monitor is 1680×1050 and the secondary 1280×1024. What’s the deal with 1024×768 in this age group?

The answer is something you probably didn’t think of: Games.

Games run much better and faster at lower resolutions. And if you keep your Windows resolution as 1024×768, when the switch to the game happens your icons don’t get all messed up and moved around. This is common in XP when you have your Windows resolution set different than your game resolution.

In addition, not all computer gamers run the newest blazing fast PC hardware. Many run decidedly old stuff and couldn’t care less about things like anisotropic filtering as long as the game plays smooth and fast. To get any advantage in speed and smoothness possible, the resolution is lowered on purpose even if the eyesight is just fine.

If you thought 1024×768 was only for the 40+ crowd, think again. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of younger users rockin’ the 1024 resolution for daily use.

What’s your res?

Write a comment and let people know. Include the resolution and your monitor’s physical size (ex: 17-inch, 19-inch, 20-inch, etc.)

LCD monitors are great. No question. They’re thin, can be moved around easily, don’t use much electricity, don’t produce static when turned on or off, have a crisp picture that stays crisp, and so on.

However there is one failing of LCD monitors and a big one at that. It’s a lack of vertical resolution.

I’ll explain.

Let’s say you want a monitor that has a 2048-pixel-wide resolution. Yes, this is an insane amount of pixels. How big, as in physically big, do you have to go with an LCD to get this?

The answer is 21 inches.

However, at that size you only get 1152 pixels on the vertical within a reasonable price range – and those are 23-inchers. The monitor is really wide, but seriously short. Bear in mind that is only 72 pixels taller than a 1680×1050 resolution. Like I said, short.

Now let’s say you want something with some true vertical resolution, as in 2048×1536. That’s proper.

That will cost you $4,400 to get it with LCD. You literally pay an extra four thousand dollars for those extra 384 vertical pixels.

Now let’s compare this to the good ol’ CRT – which is really hard to come by these days.

You can get a 21-inch monitor that will support a true 2048×1536 resolution. I found one on eBay for just $600. It’s used because I could not locate a new one.

(Note: If you know of any vendor that does sell these new, please feel free to post a comment with a link as I’m sure there would be some interested parties.)

Who needs crazy resolutions like this?

Programmers love having this kind of screen real estate. You can fit so much stuff on-screen that there is no need for a secondary monitor.

If you’re wondering, "How could anyone read anything at that resolution?" Trust me, programmers can and do routinely.

You simply cannot get the vertical resolution of those old huge 21 and 22-inch CRTs on modern LCDs. Not without paying several thousand dollars for it, anyway.

To answer the question: Did we lose resolution with LCD? Unquestionably, yes.

Hopefully someday the LCD monitor manufacturers will wise up and give us some decent vertical resolution at an agreeable price.

And no, buying an LCD that turns sideways is not the answer because then you lose a ton of horizontal real estate. What the monitor manufacturers need to do is start making taller monitors and not wider. We’ve got enough wide to go around already and don’t need any more. We need height.

For those that would say, "Well, just get a 2560×1600 LCD! Problem solved!" No, problem not solved. The monitor is physically too large. You’re going to have a 26 or 30-inch behemoth on the desk. That’s not practical at all. Maybe fun and cool, but not practical.

Wide is great, but don’t you wish sometimes you had an extra 300 or so pixels at the bottom? I know I do.

Real-world monitor resolution considerations for those of us on a budget

The two best resolutions that give you the most usable vertical space within a reasonable price are:

• 1680×1050
• 1280×1024

Why is vertical resolution so important? Because you scroll less.

My advice: Don’t buy anything under 1000 pixels on the vertical. Not unless you like scrolling a lot.

In the beginning (more or less)..

..there was 320×200 resolution with the Commodore 64.

Then came MS-DOS and VGA with 640×480 resolution. It was good and there was much rejoicing. Then came Super VGA (800×600). And it was better. And there was more rejoicing.

Fast-forward to present. You can now easily acquire LCD monitors with very high native resolutions. The big-big ones have 2560×1600.

But the people aren’t rejoicing anymore.

Is there such a thing as too much resolution? Yes. And it matters, because for many, anything over 1280×1024 is just too much, mainly due to the fact there’s much squinting involved when running native.

You may have noticed over the past few years that OEMs and monitor makers are purposely downing the native resolution on LCD monitors. This is because too many people were complaining that they couldn’t even read the text under their icons on the desktop without upping the font sizes at least 4 to 6 points (which is a lot).

Some would say, "So increase the font size.. what’s the problem?" The problem is that applications "expect" you to run native font size choices, and when you increase that size, menus look a bit off, scrollbars (the bad kind) happen and so on.

Running the native resolution on an LCD monitor with standard font sizes is obviously the best choice for the best picture and general use. With that said, here are my recommendations if you’re shopping around for monitors.

To note, "optimum" means "the res you can see and read stuff the best with".

Laptop 15-inch screen optimum resolution: 1280×800

The 1280×800 native res on a 15-inch widescreen laptop is "just right", so to speak. Both Linux and Windows look best with this res.

Note: Yes, you can read things easier with Ubuntu Linux compared to Windows XP. All fonts are larger, thicker and much easier to read.

Also note: Laptop LCD monitors are typically better than standalones. They are more crisp, clear and have far less tendency to "fuzz" things on-screen.

Standalone standard aspect 19-inch flat panel optimum resolution: 1280×1024

This resolution on a 19-inch standard aspect (meaning non-widescreen) makes reading everything very easy.

Standalone widescreen 22-inch flat panel optimum resolution: 1680×1050

You can "get away" with 1680×1050 on 20 and 21.5-inch monitors, but it definitely looks best on the 22.

Standalone widescreen 24-inch flat panel optimum resolution: 1920×1200

Make no mistake, a 24-inch monitor is frickin’ huge. And while it’s true you can get a lesser resolution of 1920×1080, the extra pixel height makes a (literally) big difference.

And believe it or not, one can be had for $260 new. It’s definitely not an expensive as it was a year ago.

What’s the best for those on a tight budget?

The standard aspect 19-inch at 1280×1024. This is the one I usually recommend. They sell for as little as $120 new.

What’s the best for those that can spend more?

The 24-inch widescreen. Bear in mind it’s big and requires space. Definitely not for small desks. And if you have one of those hutch-style things, it may be too tall to fit. If this may present itself to be an issue, shop for one that specifically has a height-adjustable base because it will be required.

A common issue many have when installing Ubuntu in Virtualbox is that the default virtual resolution is limited to a maxium of 800×600. By installing the Guest Additions that come with Virtualbox, you can easily get any screen res you want. See video for details.

THIS VIDEO IS AVAILABLE IN HD RESOLUTION. Click here to go to the YouTube page and click the “HD” link in the video player.

Happy ‘09, everyone. Hope yours is a good one.

It is tradition in the United States that people make what’s called their "New Year’s Resolutions", i.e. a  to-do list of things they want to get done. This can be things such as losing a few pounds, paying off a few debts, getting some housework done, etc.

These are my tech resolutions. Will they happen? Maybe.

1. Switch to 64-bit computing.

This is all dependent on whether Windows 7 gets released this year or not. The cost to go 64-bit is roughly the same as 32-bit. Granted, I could go 64 now with Linux or Mac OS X (both have 64-bit releases), but what can I say… I’m a Windows guy.

(Edit: Yes I know there’s 64-bit Vista but I want 7 specifically.)

2. Get better at that whole social media thing.

Social media works. Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, Bebo, YouTube, Flickr or whatever you use, it does work if you put effort into it. And when I say "effort" I mean creating relationships OTI that translate into IRL. You can have as many OTIs as you can muster but it matters more when human contact is achieved.

3. Host more PCMech Live shows.

There hasn’t been a live show for the past 2 weeks because of the holiday stuff. In addition to getting back into the swing of every Wednesday 8-10pm EST there will also be other shows added in there.

This isn’t a "maybe" on this list. It will happen.

4. Get a netbook.

The netbook is a super-small factor laptop with an 8 or 10-inch screen. These are the ultimate in portability, I really like them and their cheap. I haven’t bought one yet because the specs are not up to par in my opinion. If I’m going to get one it has to have at least a 256GB hard drive on board, 10 to 12-inch screen and a few other things – of which they don’t have yet.

But maybe by 2009 year’s end they will? Guess we’ll have to wait and see.

For those that ask why I’m so hot on netbooks, it’s because they encompass what portable computers are all about, that being portable. Not "desktop replacements", not "chuck everything in there under the sun" and so on. Laptops are supposed to be small, light and portable, and nothing does it better than a netbook.

For those that say "iPhone!", you can take your touch-based scrunched keyboard and shove it. No thanks. I want a real computer with a real keyboard and trackpad that DOESN’T REQUIRE ME TO SUBSCRIBE TO A SERVICE just to use, thank you very much.

5. Backup more.

I do backup now but I really should backup more.

I will have to invest is some more USB sticks. Particularly 4GB ones. I’d rather use those over optical media any day because they’re far more reliable.

How about you?

Do you have a tech to-do for 2009?

The Microsoft Windows operating environment introduced something called "font smoothing" right around the time Internet Explorer 4.0 was released in 1997. Even way back then (this is before the release of Windows 98) Microsoft understood that type on screen must be as legible as possible.

ClearType, another Microsoft way of making fonts look better, was announced in 1998 but didn’t make an appearance until January 2000 as a feature of the Microsoft Reader software for those that remember that title.

When Windows XP was introduced in 2001, ClearType was built-in.

All this font stuff is called subpixel rendering technology. In layman’s terms is just means the fonts you see on screen are rendered differently.

In Windows XP (and in Vista assumedly) you can enable or disable ClearType at whim. This is done via Control Panel / Display / Appearance / Effects button. You see this:

If you check "Use the following method…" and select "Standard" from the drop-down menu, fonts under the 12pt size will not show as ClearType. If you select "ClearType", all fonts are rendered in ClearType. If you uncheck the box, no fonts will be shown in ClearType at all.

I do recommend anyone running Windows XP to download and use the ClearType Tuner PowerToy. This will add an icon in your Control Panel called "ClearType Tuning". When you click it you see this:

Using the Wizard helps out a great deal in selecting how much ClearType rendering you want. Very handy to have.

Which is more readable, ClearType or Standard?

This obviously depends on a few factors:

LCD or CRT?

Subpixel rendering has heavy concentration to make fonts look good on an LCD monitor (note the screen shot above: "..improves the readability of text on existing LCDs"). More often than not if you’re using a CRT, turning ClearType off will look better.

Why is this? Because CRT monitors aren’t as crisp as LCDs are. If you have ClearType enabled on a CRT it may "fuzz out" the fonts too much causing them to look "smudgy".

Font size

Obviously larger fonts look better than smaller ones when talking about subpixel rendering. Think of it this way: With digital photography, larger resolution is always better. With smaller resolutions you lose focus. The same can be said for fonts.

LCD screen striping

If the smaller fonts on your screen have the tendency to have oddly-colored edges, sometimes something as simple as changing the LCD screen striping will fix this. The ClearType Tuning applet has an "Advanced" section where you can change it from red/green/blue to blue/green/red:

Note the left side of the screen shot above.

If when you change this it makes the fonts look bad, just change it back. It will not "mess up" your monitor whatsoever because it has nothing to do with screen resolution; just the font rendering method.

Standard resolution fonts do not have any issue whatsoever with display no matter what screen striping method you use.

Is the font "interrupted" by a background image?

This is particularly dealing with what wallpaper you use. Certain wallpaper will make the text under your icons difficult to read while others will not.

General rule of thumb: Darker-image wallpaper always make the icon text look better. And of course, using no wallpaper is the best for legibility – especially if the background color is black.

What’s your refresh rate?

The standard refresh rate for almost all LCD monitors is 60Hz. I made mention in the past that some offer the option of 59Hz. This may offer slightly better readability.

With CRT monitors, the default refresh rate is also 60Hz – but you may find better luck with 70, 72, 75 or 85 depending on the choices you have.

If no matter what you do for hertz on a CRT the fonts still look crappy, disable ClearType.

Screen hardware settings

This actually has nothing to do with the font itself but rather the physical monitor settings.

The ones to pay attention to are:

• Brightness
• Contrast
• Sharpness
• Color

Brightness and Contrast:

When your monitor is showing nothing but black, it should be as black as possible and not gray-ish. If the gray exists this will "fuzz" fonts a bit.

Sharpness:

Too much sharpness will cause odd colors to appear in font rendering.

Color:

You have "cool" and "warm" settings here. Generally speaking "cool" (blue-ish) is better read easier. HOWEVER – going to blue can be trying on the eyes by making the whites too stark. Adjust only in slight increments if you have the option.

Every now and then, I find it interesting to delve into the server logs for PCMech and find out what you guys are using in your system. The PCMech audience is pretty representative of the “normal” computer-using audience. We don’t have an uber-geeky crowd here. We have what I think is a normal cross-section of the computer using public. So, what do the server logs say about you?

Continued

I’m currently working on a digital photography course for PCMU, so this week’s wallpapers are all real-life photos I’ve taken using a very inexpensive digital camera.

In the course materials you will find out how to take photos like the ones shown below.

In addition, all the photos below will be available as super-size wallpaper. One will be posted for each day of the week. To see them, subscribe to the PCMech feed via RSS.

This is an exclusive RSS-feed-only wallpaper download. Click the image below to view, right-click (or command-click on Mac) and set as your wallpaper.

Standard

Widescreen

This is an exclusive RSS-feed-only wallpaper download. Click the image below to view, right-click (or command-click on Mac) and set as your wallpaper.

Standard

 
Widescreen

This is an exclusive RSS-feed-only wallpaper download. Click the image below to view, right-click (or command-click on Mac) and set as your wallpaper.

Standard

Widescreen

This is an exclusive RSS-feed-only wallpaper download. Click the image below to view, right-click (or command-click on Mac) and set as your wallpaper.

Standard

Widescreen