Screen Sizes

If it doesn't fit elsewhere, it should go here
Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 00:13

Disregarding the guy who had a tiny screen and who was unable to count, what is the smallest screen size that anyone actually uses? This isn't counting if you can make it go smaller, this is the smallest in use.
We'll start with 1280 x 800, post a reply if you use less than this.
Obviously if someone else has already said smaller than you then there's no point posting.

User avatar
Zlmpery
Posts: 339
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 19:12

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 00:15

Camewel wrote:Disregarding the guy who had a tiny screen and who was unable to count, what is the smallest screen size that anyone actually uses? This isn't counting if you can make it go smaller, this is the smallest in use.
We'll start with 1280 x 800, post a reply if you use less than this.
Obviously if someone else has already said smaller than you then there's no point posting.
Well, mine is 1366 x 768. It's It's partially smaller. >.<

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 00:19

Yeah, even if just one measurement is smaller, it still counts.

Maurice
Stabyourself.net
Posts: 2145
Joined: 01 Feb 2012, 20:19

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 00:25

My netbook (which I use a lot) has 1024x600.

User avatar
Jorichi
Moderator
Posts: 964
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 02:08

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 00:39

Maurice wrote:My netbook (which I use a lot) has 1024x600.
Asus Eee Pc? (I got the 1005PE)
I got the same size...

User avatar
That Communist
Posts: 26
Joined: 18 Mar 2012, 03:16

Post » 05 Apr 2012, 05:48

Back in the day I had a 600x800.

That was some shit.

Why did they think making it taller was better?

User avatar
Kyle Prior
Posts: 469
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 23:38

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 03:55

My desktop usess a 10 inch monitor from about 1995 = 640x480. it's so blurry that any other resolution makes text unreadable. even the [X] in the corner of windows is difficult to see. Obviously, I don't use it that much.

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 14:14

1366 x 768

Camewel
Posts: 2996
Joined: 02 Feb 2012, 21:32

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 14:38

Camewel wrote:Obviously if someone else has already said smaller than you then there's no point posting.
Maurice wrote:My netbook (which I use a lot) has 1024x600.
rokit boy wrote:1366 x 768
Raicuparta once said Trosh was the biggest spammer on this forum, but he was wrong. Many of Trosh's posts actually have a purpose. You see to like posting just for the sake of posting. Having a lot of useless posts isn't a good thing. It just marks you out as an utter moron.

User avatar
trosh
Posts: 1594
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 08:36

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 14:48

WHAT?MYSPAMMERREPUTATIONHASBEENTAINTED?randomrandomrandomrandomrandomrandomwhycantihavespacesrandomrandomradnomrandom
my cell phone screen is 240*320 so i pwn you all. (what ? I can't play mari0 on my dumbphone ? since when ?)

User avatar
rokit
Posts: 2095
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 00:47

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 14:53

I have an Xperia X 10 MINI so it's twice as small.

User avatar
jasonw749
Posts: 199
Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 21:20

Post » 06 Apr 2012, 16:06

Camewel wrote: Raicuparta once said Trosh was the biggest spammer on this forum, but he was wrong. Many of Trosh's posts actually have a purpose. You see to like posting just for the sake of posting. Having a lot of useless posts isn't a good thing. It just marks you out as an utter moron.
hmmm i havent seen raicuparta in a while...

User avatar
Raicuparta
Posts: 540
Joined: 04 Feb 2012, 02:07

Post » 09 Apr 2012, 10:18

Camewel wrote:Raicuparta once said Trosh was the biggest spammer on this forum, but he was wrong. Many of Trosh's posts actually have a purpose. You see to like posting just for the sake of posting. Having a lot of useless posts isn't a good thing. It just marks you out as an utter moron.
Just for the record, when I said that I was joking. Trosh got a post-count boost on the game release, he was just trying to help controlling the crowd, and I even told him something like "good job", maybe that was in the Beta forum. You should have quoted my insults towards rokit boy, it would have been more appropriate.

User avatar
samkostka
Posts: 289
Joined: 17 Feb 2012, 04:42

Post » 14 May 2012, 07:14

176 x 132 ipod nano 2g

suck it
but seriously same as Maurice

User avatar
PloXyZeRO
Posts: 321
Joined: 03 Apr 2012, 21:43

Post » 14 May 2012, 07:50

Calculator
16 x 64
BEAT THAT

I also have a netbook that has 1024 x 600 though.
What about biggest? In physical size?
I have a 65'' TV in my living room, soon to be replaced with a 73''!
It's fun to get a bunch of people over and watch a movie on it. Games are fun too but I prefer a small monitor for no video lag.

User avatar
renhoek
Posts: 4545
Joined: 11 Feb 2012, 10:04

Post » 14 May 2012, 13:23

170000x99000
do I win?

FaycalMenouar
Posts: 1069
Joined: 11 May 2012, 18:00

Post » 08 Jul 2012, 11:34

rokit boy wrote:1366 x 768

DiamondPhoenix
Posts: 107
Joined: 04 Mar 2012, 05:35

Post » 09 Jul 2012, 03:22

PloXyZeRO wrote:Calculator
16 x 64
BEAT THAT
My pleasure!

My (old and broken) Tamagotchi "Dinkie Dino" is 19 x 16. (the pixels are big).
-----
My laptop is 1366 x 768