New Years Resolutions

My resolutions for the new year are:
Left: 1680x1050@60
Center 2560x1440@144
Right: 1680x1050@60


For 2017 I still have a single screen and 1920x1080 resolution.


Eric Johnson

Ha! :D

On my laptop (which I'm using now), the resolution is a measly 1600x900 60hz. :( My desktop's monitor is 1920x1080 60hz though. But it's not the size that matters... it's how you use it. ;)


It will change in the new year because I plan to build a new computer and get the note 8 if there is nothing better out by then.


Aaron Bolyard

Nothing fancy. 1920 x 1080.


piccolo said:

It will change in the new year because I plan to build a new computer and get the note 8 if there is nothing better out by then.

Is that your boat? Any chances of getting it afloat again?


1920x1080 as always.


@Elias: Yes i am working on it.
i moved it to my background so i will think of ways to get it up whenever i look at it.


Can you fill it with floating rubber balls?



that's is a lot of rubber balls.

Bruce Perry

Nothing changing for me - a 1920x1200 Cintiq at home and a laptop with a 1920x1080 screen for work and for my time in Germany :)

And a 32x32 sampling for the FFT madness I'm currently slipping into :-X

Bob Keane

1366x768 still.


As to improvements, I think I'll try talking more to people. Maybe write a program.

Edgar Reynaldo

Sporting 2x1920x1080 on my lappie and HDTV / Widescreen monitor + 1600x1200 on an old fat heavy CRT. XP looks so tiny! Windows 10 does it fine though.

Steve Terry

1680x1050 :P i havent upgraded in a while.


With HDMI output my laptop manages 1920x1080


1920x1080 still. I just got a BIG donation on my Allegro 5 game (Deluxe Pacman 2) of $3200 Canadian, so I am considering grabbing a new monitor, but as an extra to the one I already have. Never had a dual monitor setup but I think it could come in handy for developing.


Who in the bloody Hell donated $3200 to a pacman clone?! Congrats on that anyway!

My resolution remains at 2048x1152@60hz. I want too many things in different directions to get anything new! In any case, that's a decent resolution. I don't know how people survive on 1920x1080 for a computer monitor. I hate that so much. Well, I guess you do what you must.

What I want is to start playing CS:GO competitive, but for that I need a working mic. I'd also like to get the FPS up which means a video card, and I'd love surround sound precision which means a sound card... That's just my computer. Then I need motorcycle gear replacements and upgrades. And a few other high price items on my wish list... None of it I can afford.

Shortly I'll be getting a remote starter for my truck. Thanks to Miranda. That will be nice. :-*

Anyway, my actual resolution is to start waking up at 8 AM again everyday so that I have time before work to shower. I've been getting up at 8:40 or 9 for the past year which barely leaves me enough time to clean the snow off in the winter!


Guys does anyone want to collab with me to make a pac-man game?

Dizzy Egg


bamccaig said:

Who in the bloody Hell donated $3200 to a pacman clone?! Congrats on that anyway!

;D... honestly, I am with you, I don't know why someone would but... this is the SECOND time this same person has done this, he's from Chicago anyhow. The first time was $1250 US a couple years ago, and now $2500 US. The game is free so, they don't have to pay a penny, I only made it for my wife initially.

It certainly does inspire me to work on something else though! ;)

This also makes me love Americans even more. ;)

Guys does anyone want to collab with me to make a pac-man game?




Working on a DOS game maybe? ???

Bruce Perry

They're trying to get the money out of the US quickly before Trump gets it ;D

Bambams, isn't your resolution only barely higher than the resolution you said you can't stand?


2048 - 1920 = 128
1152 - 1080 = 72

I think that's enough of a difference to matter. I know you can definitely notice a significant visual difference.


2048 * 1152 / 1920 / 1080 = 1.137

So you get 14% more pixels!

Bruce Perry

Remember when resolutions like 640x480 and 800x600 were the norm? :)



Remember when resolutions like 640x480 and 800x600 were the norm? :)

Heck, I still remember when 640x400 was high res! :D

I ran 640x200 on my Amiga for years.

I NEED to build an old DOS system I think... with DJGPP and Allegro 4 (which I still have on here, along with some of my older Allegro+DOS games). Maybe I'll see what I can code for DOSBox. Could be fun.

Chris Katko


4K. 55". 3 feet from my face.

I've died and gone to heaven.


Chris wins this.


I don't know about that... TV's tend to be poor up close. That resolution is spread out over a larger space. In the case of a 55" display it's spread out over a much larger space! Look at the comparisons here: A 4K display at 55" has a pixel density of 80.11. Whereas a 1920x1080 display at 23" has a pixel density of 95.78. Everything on the TV would be slightly more fuzzy. I think that there's a balance to be had somewhere in the middle. Maximizing your pixel density while finding the right balance for screen size. I don't know that I could effectively use 55" 3 feet from my face. I imagine it would require a lot more eye and head movement. Still cool that you have one. My TV is a 40" 1080p Samsung from like 10 years ago (and it's low on the list of upgrades). :D

Chris Katko
bamccaig said:

Whereas a 1920x1080 display at 23" has a pixel density of 95.78.

That's the point though. Exact same DPI as my old monitor, except 4 times the screen space.

It's kind of a PITA to get used to though. I use Windows keys to go left half, right half of the screen. But in 4K, you really want quarter (or less!) sized windows. I use a tool called GridMove which lets me bind Middle Click drag to drop into "grids", which happen to be quarter screens... 1080p each.

Still, when I need to do reading, I end up putting it to ~1920 wide but full height. But then I have to manually put the window in the middle of the screen.

So... I'm still debating whether it's really worth it to develop on. I really like normal 1080p dual-monitor setup. I'm really efficient with RDP/VM on one screen, windows on the other.

But gaming is super fun on that 4K monitor. Even if you were to play 4-player splitscreen, each player would get 1080p.

But for normal computer use... it is kind of "too big." Movies feel amazing. Jungle Book in 4K actually... actually FELT 3-D in certain scenes. It blew my and my wife's minds when it happened. Mountains and tall buildings actually start feeling 3-D in certain scenes. (LG has patented a process for their 11K screen that says 3-D is built-in with no need for glasses or anything at that resolution.)

I've been wanting to try 4K for a long time but never could afford it. I just so happened to get a bonus (first time since I got hired) and it all went into the TV. Otherwise, there's no way I'd be able to afford it.


I think that the inherent flaw of split screen has always been that the other screens are either distracting or "ghosting" (or both). I do have fond memories of playing Siphon Filter 2 against my brother on PlayStation, but then again I almost always won so I doubt he has such fond memories. In any case, split screen is inherently flawed. The size of the screen was certainly an issue, and in particular the ratio of the split, but not the only issue.

In any case, I'm not a multi-window kind of person. I prefer to manage screenfuls of data instead most of the time. I maximize all of windows. Have for a decade. In rare instances I'll take advantage of left and right stick to split the screen for a particular task, but I never multitask that way. I do multitask in a tmux session with split panes, but that's somewhat different since I can navigate between them with the keyboard and rarely need to anyway.

I think there is some future to tiled window managers. I haven't gotten hugely into them, though I did spend probably a year or two using xmonad and loved it. I mainly left it for Steam/game compatibility. It makes a lot of sense to me for windows to be tiled. That said, the management of them still becomes a bit of a bother. I'm especially attracted to UI's that are optimized for keyboard usage.

In any case, 4K at 22" is much more detailed than 4K at 55". That's the point that I was trying to make. It's actually pretty close to the desktop resolutions that we're used to a few years back so I'm sure you can make do. I don't think it necessarily is ideal, particularly when you are so close or start to divide the screen into parts. I'm sure that's an awesome TV from 10 or 20 feet away, but from 3 feet away I'm sure it's a painful monitor.

But to each his own. I'm sure you love it and that's all that matters.


Isn't the new thing in 2017 to strap your phone directly in front of your eyes anyway, instead of using a screen?

Thomas Fjellstrom



l j

1920x1080@144hz, I suppose that's a little bit fancy.


@Chris Katko

I think the real problem is that you are 3 feet away. For some games it will be almost impossible to take in all that screen information quickly enough to be efficient. I know this because my screen is a sony projector

Chris Katko

I used to use a projector. It was awesome having a ~120" screen (though only 720p). It sucked having to always use it in a dark room (or wait till night) to watch movies or play games though.


- When I play games that need full screen, like a 2-D game, I sit back further. Age of Empires 2 in 4K is like... insanely impossible to use the small buttons and the viewing area... you NEED to be able to see the entire screen at once.

- But for a 3-D game, where you can increase the FOV, I crank it to around 120 (the max) in Chivalry. The screen "wraps" around your vision and just feels like you're surrounded by a screen.

I've done the same thing with my older 40" 1080p screen for games. It was fun but the low DPI could get really bad because too close and you really saw the "shutter effect" of black lines inbetween the pixels.

4K has really shown me how important DPI independent GUI's are going to be as we move forward. So I really want to have my future games work on a, say, 20" 1080p, 23" 4K (double DPI), and 55" 4K screen (same DPI as the first, but twice the viewing area).

Also, Windows 7 is REALLY showing it's age because it has very basic (at best) DPI-scaling support.

I wanted a 4K for:

- Movies. (100% satistfied.)

- More desktop space. (It's been a mixed bag / adaption.) I may go back to two 1080p for my daily work and put the TV in the family room and just use it for 3-D games when I want to.

- Text reading. (Mixed or to worse. Harder to read text at an angle, especially in Win7 with no good DPI scaling.)

- Games. (Mixed bag. 3-D with FOV look amazing. 2-D can look amazing or horrible depending on how well the graphics and GUI's scale.)

- Game development. (I want to play with / learn if there's any real creativity advantage for my future games using that 4K.)

My TV was "supposed" to also have HDR support. You'd think paying $800 for a TV would give you "top of the line" but apparently it only has "HDR Premium" which is another word for "No HDR at all, enjoy your 8-bit depth panel."

Like I said before, the only reason I could dream of buying this was a completely unexpected bonus. I was going to put back $50-100 each month to save for a TV but I expected to be waiting a long time. Otherwise, my money goes to bills bills bills...

Oh, also! I never had this problem before but YOU NEED a high DPI mouse. If you go from 1080p to 4K, your mouse moves HALF as fast across the screen (same pixels as before). But here's the thing! If you INCREASE your mouse speed? You start SKIPPING PIXELS. So you lose tons of accuracy in windows. And in GAMES? My friend came over to try Chivalry out. It was almost IMPOSSIBLE to make a crossbow shot because if you moved the mouse, you would be too far left (then you move right) and you completely pass their head and you're looking at their other shoulder. So decrease mouse sensitivity, right? Nope. Now you can't turn around for crap and you feel super sluggish. So I ended up having to use swords and "Guesstimating" where my attack should start from. Swinging attacks were easy-ish, but point thrusts were almost impossible to land.

I ended up buying a $30 (Man, they've become cheap!!!) "Gaming Mouse". Forever, I've been using some crap (almost unbranded) Dell 2-button mouse since all my 5-button Microsoft Intellimouse mice were broken (cables dying or buttons dying). I'm still trying to get used to this silly mouse with 8+ buttons and "adjust DPI" buttons. But it's getting more natural.

People would probably be just as fine to buy the $13 (one lower) model:

Bruce Perry

A while ago I splashed out on one of these - I think it was the only truly left-handed-friendly gaming mouse I could find, but definitely the only one I also liked the look of. I tried to get it cheap but got scammed with an international delivery subject to customs and VAT charges that I wasn't informed about. Still, I've been very happy with it :)



I have a Logitech G9 and a G9x. I worship these mice. It's expensive to get them now because they've been discontinued so long and there's nothing else like them on the market today (as far as I know). The G9x is usually sold around $400. The G9 is usually sold around $200. I bought the G9 new from an online store probably 5 or 10 years ago. The G9x I managed to snipe off of eBay or something for $200 a couple of years ago.

Thomas Fjellstrom

I have a g700s thats been annoying me. So far my favorite mice have been Logitech MX510's and M510's.

It seems they've changed the sensor they use in the M510's since I bought my first couple, as the newest one is much better at working on various fabrics.

Thread #616660. Printed from