• (cs)

    I created a video and got asked the resolution. I chose 720p.

  • (cs)

    Oh... I get it... Resolutions...

    I work with customer owned hardware, so my resolution for 2014 is whatever it's already set to.

  • (cs)

    This could only be funny to people who are still drunk from last night.

  • (cs)

    I'm just running at 1920x1080. If stuff isn't huge and I can't see the pixels, I don't really care a whole lot.

  • (cs)

    If you guys are having trouble thinking of a new years resolution I have a suggestion: "I will stop making lame puns".

  • Chris Angelico (unregistered)

    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

  • 320x240 (unregistered)

    Why is Remy Porter watching a giant potato attack the Space Needle on his laptop? Clearly that should be on one of the larger screens.

  • Commoveo (unregistered)

    Only egotists use more than one monitor.

  • (cs) in reply to Zacrath

    How do you know we're not?

  • Jeff Grigg (unregistered)

    All I want is neural implants with a virtual reality simulation accurate to the limits of what my brain can comprehend. ;->

    (I don't ask for much, do I?)

  • wisi (unregistered) in reply to Commoveo
    Commoveo:
    Only egotists use more than one monitor.
    I see someone didn't get what he wanted from Santa. :-(
  • (cs)

    A long time ago, I noticed that my 21" CRT monitor was probably able to support resolutions a bit higher than the system-provided 1280x1024@60Hz. I found a small utility which was able to calculate any possible resolution, according to the monitor’s frequency range. It allowed to go up to something like 1500x1200@50Hz (complete guess), but I typically used it at 1380x1104@61Hz.

    So if around 2005 you noticed in your website's stats a visitor with a 1380x1104 monitor, it was probably me.

  • Brian (unregistered)

    A decent resolution would be to not make one single crappy pun and then stretch it out to 695 words. Ever again.

  • Egbert (unregistered) in reply to Chris Angelico
    Chris Angelico:
    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

    Seriously. Do you ever listen to yourself?

  • Flygon (unregistered) in reply to VinDuv

    Sounds like some shenanigans I've pulled off with my own CRT's.

    2048*1536 120Hz may seem like a bleeding lot of fun. But most 19in CRTs most certainly don't come with the required dot pitch to make anything readable! And this ol' clunker from 1999 most certainly didn't!

    HDTV still looks nicer on it than the el cheapo LCDs the family likes to buy, though (if you ignore the atrocious bitrates terrestrial DTV has here).

  • (cs)

    This brings up a question I've wanted to ask for a long time: Why is it that when my laptop encounters a monitor it has never seen before, that it thinks a good "default" resolution is 800x600? Regardless of monitor capability?

    Okay, I realize there's no answer that could possibly make sense...I'll be quiet and hold it inside from now on.

  • Highly Resolved (unregistered)

    YFTL: http://ndssi.com/radiance/g2-hb.html

    (--snip--)

    tl;dnr [Displays used in medical applications have very high resolution and stringent image replication requirements.]

  • Highly Resolved (unregistered) in reply to Coyne
    Coyne:
    This brings up a question I've wanted to ask for a long time: Why is it that when my laptop encounters a monitor it has never seen before, that it thinks a good "default" resolution is 800x600? Regardless of monitor capability?

    Okay, I realize there's no answer that could possibly make sense...I'll be quiet and hold it inside from now on.

    The laptop isn't able to ask the display what it supports, so it defaults to SVGA? resolution (allowing something to be displayed).

  • Vilx- (unregistered)

    I'm starting to look for a 2014x2014 resolution monitor, with a color depth of 2014 and refresh rate of 2014Hz. Anyone got a spare one they could sell me?

  • (cs)
    Bruce Johnson

    Well, my favorite resolution is 80x24. But that’s just because I got started in computers back in the IBM 3270 days.

    So did I, but later spent a few years futzing around on a Radio Shack Model 100, so I can do 40×8 in a pinch.

  • (cs) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    If you guys are having trouble thinking of a new years resolution I have a suggestion: "I will stop making lame puns".
    I promise to stop making pame luns.

    (Actually, I don't deal with luns . . . that's a server engineer's job. I'm the bastard you yell at when you think there's a network problem. Of course, it's never a network problem. Fix your shit.)

  • aaargh (unregistered)

    My new years resolution is to delete The Daily WTF subscription from my news reader if the quality doesn't improve soon. I've been worried you'd jumped the shark for a while, but this article is a real low...

  • (cs)

    I don't know about you, but I use DNS for my resolutions!

  • Jim (unregistered) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    This could only be funny to people who are still drunk from last night.
    No it couldn't.
  • resolute (unregistered)

    Does Hanzo have any resolution?

  • Darren (unregistered)

    Sorry WTF is this post all about????

  • Norman Diamond (unregistered)

    Was today's article copied from xkcdsw.com? They copied it from a posting in rec.humor around 20 years ago.

    Speaking of old days though, my resolution was 80x2000, which was a box of cards when interactive terminals were still rare. Printouts were typically 133x60, but if you neglected to insert formfeeds you got 133x66 which was hard to read.

  • accident (unregistered)

    way to start off the year with a ... well, definitely not a bamg. I would actually read a hanzo story over this.

  • Worf (unregistered) in reply to Chris Angelico
    Chris Angelico:
    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

    I've always wondered why there's no TrueType version of a good console font. Yeah there's Courier and Consolas and Lucida, but I want a font like the old DOS days. Windows has a BITMAP version of that font, but it looks crappy scaled - surely someone by now has made one?

    I mean, it's nice a fat so it's easy to recognize latters especially with poor eyesight, 0 and O are easily differentiable (as with 1, I and l) and other properties that make it look good on screen...

  • (cs) in reply to Worf
    Worf:
    Windows has a BITMAP version of that font, but it looks crappy scaled

    Wait... You want something that reminds you of DOS, but then want to scale it up and not have it look chunky? Isn't that contradictory? DOS looks plenty chunky if you use a nice big monitor/TV/projector.

  • (cs)

    Lorne Kates: don't worry, Microsoft beat you to it with the new 'color options' in Visual Studio 2013

  • Cheong (unregistered)

    @Lorne Kates: I remember that we once have program at the age of DOS showing white text on white background on a monochrome display, so your problem is unlikely to be resolved this way.

  • John (unregistered)

    TRWTF is that Ellis hasn't installed SP1 onto their Windows 7 machine!

  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to Worf
    Worf:
    Chris Angelico:
    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

    I've always wondered why there's no TrueType version of a good console font. Yeah there's Courier and Consolas and Lucida, but I want a font like the old DOS days. Windows has a BITMAP version of that font, but it looks crappy scaled - surely someone by now has made one?

    I mean, it's nice a fat so it's easy to recognize latters especially with poor eyesight, 0 and O are easily differentiable (as with 1, I and l) and other properties that make it look good on screen...

    [image]

  • (cs) in reply to Zacrath
    Zacrath:
    This could only be funny to people who are still drunk from last night.
    Oh, don't be such a wet blanket. This was lighthearted and amusing.
  • (cs) in reply to 320x240
    320x240:
    Why is Remy Porter watching a giant potato attack the Space Needle on his laptop? Clearly that should be on one of the larger screens.
    It's his thumb.

    At least I hope it's his thumb.

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to Worf
    Worf:
    I've always wondered why there's no TrueType version of a good console font.
    Have you tried Bitstream Vera Sans Mono?
  • (cs) in reply to Remy Porter
    Remy Porter:
    How do you know we're not?

    Yet another comment that shows that the Reply button needs to go away.

  • ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL (unregistered) in reply to anonymous
    anonymous:
    Seriously? You think that form of lowercase "g" with the loop descender is a good in a console font?
  • anonymous (unregistered) in reply to ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL
    ¯\(°_o)/¯ I DUNNO LOL:
    anonymous:
    Seriously? You think that form of lowercase "g" with the loop descender is a good in a console font?
    You'd rather have the form that looks like a 9, I take it.
  • Dilligaf (unregistered) in reply to Worf
    Worf:
    Chris Angelico:
    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

    I've always wondered why there's no TrueType version of a good console font. Yeah there's Courier and Consolas and Lucida, but I want a font like the old DOS days. Windows has a BITMAP version of that font, but it looks crappy scaled - surely someone by now has made one?

    I mean, it's nice a fat so it's easy to recognize latters especially with poor eyesight, 0 and O are easily differentiable (as with 1, I and l) and other properties that make it look good on screen...

    Try one of these:

    http://ss64.com/fonts.html

    No akismet, I don't want to bone you.

  • Rogue_Leader (unregistered)

    "At least Google+ won't be any uglier in Lynx than in Chrome!"

    It won't be any more useful either

  • Jeremy (unregistered) in reply to Worf
    Worf:
    Chris Angelico:
    1920x1080 for development and Alice: Madness Returns (under Wine). 1024x768 for Windows, because that's all Windows needs. But I also like some nice 80x????, because I play MUDs. I'm not exactly sure what the vertical resolution is; with Gypsum, it's "as much as you need", neither more nor less. So far I'm running a fairly conservative 80x44224 (yeah!), but that'll increase across the year.

    I've always wondered why there's no TrueType version of a good console font. Yeah there's Courier and Consolas and Lucida, but I want a font like the old DOS days. Windows has a BITMAP version of that font, but it looks crappy scaled - surely someone by now has made one?

    I mean, it's nice a fat so it's easy to recognize latters especially with poor eyesight, 0 and O are easily differentiable (as with 1, I and l) and other properties that make it look good on screen...

    Perhaps this? http://www.dafont.com/nouveau-ibm.font

    (dear stupid Akismet, I promise this is note spam)

  • Decade (unregistered) in reply to dkf
    dkf:
    I don't know about you, but I use DNS for my resolutions!
    I now have DNSSEC enabled on my networks' DNS resolvers, and my personal domain and home reverse domain are DNSSEC-signed and validated with DS records.

    I intend to refine the configuration, and then include DNSSEC as part of my standard small network installations.

  • Mark (unregistered)
  • Rob Kaper (unregistered)

    I don't see the problem with the spreadsheet story. I manage larger spreadsheets than that through Google Drive on my (Android) smartphone just fine. No, of course it is not optimal, but it's definitely also not a WTF.

  • BillClintonsWeiner (unregistered)

    TRWTF is having so many monitors for coding and having none rotated to portrait.

  • Anonymouse (unregistered) in reply to 320x240
    Why is Remy Porter watching a giant potato attack the Space Needle on his laptop? Clearly that should be on one of the larger screens.
    A better question to ask is why does he have, not one, but *two* butt plugs on his desk?
  • Essex Kitten (unregistered)

    Speaking of resolutions, the guys at the UN will have lots of them too - all year round.

  • Highly Resolved (unregistered)

    Hum, the largest resolution I can find available on a single, standalone item (if you can pick it up, it counts as an item) is 10240 x 3200 resolution on a 105" device:

    http://www.digitaltigers.com/zenview-atlas-eight-screen-lcd-monitors.asp?type=pro#zvatlas30elite

    Can anyone top this with a link?

Leave a comment on “New Year Daily WTF Resolutions”

Log In or post as a guest

Replying to comment #:

Log Out

« Return to Article