Display:
It's true that 1024 x 768 is starting to be considered small, as 17" inch monitors are commonly replacing 14/15" ones. But it's also true that websites generally go for the smallest resolution (though in all fairness 640x480 is still around there, somewhere).

Actually my screen is not large for any particular pleasure of mine like CGI or games or whatever of the sort, it's just that I can then fit a lot more code horizontally in it and it then makes my work easier (I get annoyed at programmers who wrap their code around to fit on 800x600 screens, it makes the code more annoying to read, to me that is). That's also why I had tried 2 screens, then it was awesome - I could write really large lines of code stretching from one screen to the other, this was useful for some features I used.

But like I said, the problem with 2 screens it that it becomes kind of a gadget, as you can then drag windows from one screen to the other, decide what opens where etc etc. And I ended up wasting a lot of time shifting things around, which I didn't do before that (I'd then -and now- just pile things on top of each other).

by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:00:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
My crappy LCD monitor at work is 17", can do 1280*1024, but looks so crappy that way that I switched it back to 1024*768.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:09:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In my last job, the PC at work was so horribly slow, that I had to convince my boss to allow me to bring in my own PC to work every day. And I don't work with laptops, those I consider to be gadgets too. So I'd lug my PC casing around every morning, and take it back home every evening.
by Alex in Toulouse on Mon Dec 12th, 2005 at 11:20:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Occasional Series