12-03-2005, 01:00 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Ten Steps to Computer 3l33tness
"So, you've just bought a PC from Dixons, or maybe spotted one of those superb online deals at Dell where you get a free photo printer or some little plastic thing called a USB key and you're thinking you're a god-damned freedom fighting adventurer of the Information Superhighway. You're elite, certainly not lame and you look forward to owning people a great deal. Well, the first thing is to stop talking like something out of the specials board in an Internet Cafe and start listening. So, in no particular order, here's the definitive top ten things you need to do to turn you from a fragile little newbie into an arse-kicking Computing expert."
Some fun Friday off-topic humour to take you into your weekend. It's a bit UK-centric, but it gave me a good chuckle - especially the part about running 800 x 600 screen resolution. :lol: Have a good weekend everyone. w00t!
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 01:11 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Nah, you can never have too much UKcenteredness. ;-)
I well remember the days of 1280x1024 on my 14 inch monitor in 256 colours...... :crazyeyes:
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 01:13 AM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
I well remember the days of 1280x1024 on my 14 inch monitor in 256 colours...... :crazyeyes:
|
Are you serious? It seems inconceivable that there would be a video that could do 1280 x 1024 and only 256 colours...let alone on a 14" monitor. It sounds like you were combining technology from two different eras. ;-)
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 01:25 AM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Are you serious? It seems inconceivable that there would be a video that could do 1280 x 1024 and only 256 colours...let alone on a 14" monitor. It sounds like you were combining technology from two different eras. ;-)
|
Inconceivable? :wink:
It may have been a 15 inch monitor, though I went through several 14 and 15 inches at the time.I remember I usually ran my monitor at 1024x768 at 16 bit colours . A 2Mb graphics card possibly, around 1995 I believe?
I did not say I ran at 1280x1024 at 256 colours very often - but I certainly did when I needed to at the time.
I was given a mouse-holder that stuck to the side of my monitor - but never used it. :mrgreen:
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 03:59 AM
|
|
Developer & Designer, News Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 12,959
|
|
Quote:
|
5. Never use any screen resolution under 1280x960
|
I never run below 1920 x 1440 (except my laptop which is at 1920 x 1200). I guess that's pure pwnage. 
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 04:23 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,468
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
I remember I usually ran my monitor at 1024x768 at 16 bit colours . A 2Mb graphics card possibly, around 1995 I believe?
I did not say I ran at 1280x1024 at 256 colours very often - but I certainly did when I needed to at the time.
|
16 bit sounds more likely - but that would have been 65536 colours - not 256 colours (8 bit).
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 04:37 AM
|
|
Pontificator
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,468
|
|
Last year someone sent me an email complaining that FirstLoox didn't fit well on his monitor's max. resolution of 800 x 600 - and wondering what I was going to do about it. Short of saying 'buy a new monitor' (and pointing out that I had no intention of taking 640 x 480 resolutions into account either) I'm not sure what he expected me to do...?
That said - a school IT support guy I knew just a couple of years back insisted on setting up the monitors on our classroom workstations to be at 800 x 600 resolution - despite constant complaints. He insisted it was for H and S reasons - which was, of course, utter crap.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 12:58 PM
|
|
Oracle
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 866
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duncan
That said - a school IT support guy I knew just a couple of years back insisted on setting up the monitors on our classroom workstations to be at 800 x 600 resolution - despite constant complaints. He insisted it was for H and S reasons - which was, of course, utter crap.
|
The idiot IT guy at my school does the same thing. All 17"ers are on XGA, and 15" on SVGA, and the security restrictions that student accounts have (We use Win2000) mean we can't access the control panel, display properties or anything like that. So.....
I made a program using VB6 and various stuff I found on the net that lets me change the res to anything I want. I gave it out to all my friends 
XGA on 15" and SXGA on 17" isn't too bad.
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 05:35 PM
|
|
Swami
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 4,303
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Duncan
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
I remember I usually ran my monitor at 1024x768 at 16 bit colours . A 2Mb graphics card possibly, around 1995 I believe?
I did not say I ran at 1280x1024 at 256 colours very often - but I certainly did when I needed to at the time.
|
16 bit sounds more likely - but that would have been 65536 colours - not 256 colours (8 bit). |
OK, a 2Mb graphics card can do:
1280x1024 @ 8-bit = 256 colours
1024x768 @ 16-bit = 65,536 colours
800x600 @ 24-bit =16.7 million colours
I ran at all of these at diffent times when I needed to. Why the disbelief?
|
| |
|
|
|
12-03-2005, 07:49 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jonathon Watkins
I ran at all of these at diffent times when I needed to. Why the disbelief?
|
Sorry, I wasn't reading the boards last night. I was going to say I've run the exact same configs back in the day when I had my Cirrus chipset graphics cards. Jonathon is definitely correct. Although running 1280x1024, 8-bit on even a 15" CRT was painful... 8O
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
