|
|
8 Aug 2003, 02:44
|
#51
|
master of disguise
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 44
|
Resolution statistics (last year's figure in brackets) taken from http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
640x480 2% (4%)
800x600 45% (51%)
1024x768+ 51% (43%)
Competent designers can make pages that look good in both
While the percentage of high resolution users will continue to grow steadily, 800x600 will remain popular for many years.
Personally, I have to drop to a 60hz refresh rate to get 1024x768, which I find unacceptable.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 02:49
|
#52
|
Slaphead Officer
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Camping outside PA HQ, Oslo, Norway
Posts: 47
|
Quote:
Originally posted by A2
Believe me, this is only a temporary thing between r9 and the release of the proper r10 portal which I can assure you is a lot more sparkly and will allow us to do a lot more stuff.
Guess you'll have to wait and see for that though
Thanks to Mit for coding the PHP parts of this one, and Teas for providing us with a set of graphics.
|
Having this in place so that the people who respond to the advertising have something to look at, shouldnt it be more apealing to the eye? and look more professional..
or u might find all these new people responding to the advert, dismiss the site as a amature game not worth there time or money?
__________________
(@Zeus): current red a bit, but mostly brown
(@Prince|Lunch): can the women pay to see the white bits?
(@Zeus): dont have any
(@Zeus): nudest beach
(@Zeus): yes THAT WAS A JOKE, pls dont quote
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 07:03
|
#53
|
Bitch
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: North Yorkshire
Posts: 3,848
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Parthos
BTW, who said they'd prefer to scroll to see information rather than click a link for it or whatever? Horizontal scrolling is consistently reported as one of the biggest web design boo-boos, as customers can't be arsed to scroll horizontally (whereas nowadays vertical scrolling is no problem). Designing things without horizontal scrolls is such a no-brainer I'm amazed they are planning to actually do it.
|
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3131453.stm
__________________
ACHTUNG!!!
Das machine is nicht fur gefingerpoken und mittengrabben. Ist easy
schnappen der springenwerk, blowenfusen und corkenpoppen mit
spitzensparken. Ist nicht fur gewerken by das dummkopfen. Das
rubbernecken sightseeren keepen hands in das pockets. Relaxen und vatch
das blinkenlights!!!
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 08:39
|
#54
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: wish id remember more often
Posts: 59
|
why is it that all i can hear from most people is :
blablablabla im a Stu Pid@ss
If they chose for a certain option, so be it, and all of this because of a temp thingie, omg
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 08:39
|
#55
|
SHW
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: @home
Posts: 228
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
While the percentage of high resolution users will continue to grow steadily, 800x600 will remain popular for many years.
|
Very unlikely
__________________
Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover.
SHW, ReBorn, Wolfpack, NoS, Eclipse, Ascendancy
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 09:02
|
#56
|
Let battle commence
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 732
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Quetzovercoatl
Personally, I have to drop to a 60hz refresh rate to get 1024x768, which I find unacceptable.
|
Our 486's monitor / graphics card combo could do better than that. and that was an 'average PC' 11 years ago.
__________________
Mit
http://tim.igoe.me.uk - Development Blog
Whats on TV now - UK TV Guide
<Mendosa> mit is a cute cudlly toy that will be in the shops by christmas
<mig-work> ur now my eternal fav pa god
<Squiz> i name thee, Sir Mit
<Zeus> u my friend are a true gamer I knew u were
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 09:06
|
#57
|
Let battle commence
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 732
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yeggstry
If you can think of a way of creating the portal that is:
Uncluttered (even when the text size in IE is made bigger)
Fits the page in 800*600
AND is readable by all (i.e NOT making the text VERY small like bbc, microsoft etc.)
then I suggest you PM Mit, I am sure he is more than willing to hear your suggestion....
|
Tum tee tum, been there, seen it, done it, got nothing useful - exactly the same happened when i was designing the tools, everyone moaned about the look and it all being too big / hard to read etc. Thing is, when compaired to pilkara at the time, the text was bigger, there was less on a screen at once, it didn't require such a high resolution. and the best solution taht people suggested to me "make it like pilkara" which is not the aim of what i wanted to do.
__________________
Mit
http://tim.igoe.me.uk - Development Blog
Whats on TV now - UK TV Guide
<Mendosa> mit is a cute cudlly toy that will be in the shops by christmas
<mig-work> ur now my eternal fav pa god
<Squiz> i name thee, Sir Mit
<Zeus> u my friend are a true gamer I knew u were
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 09:10
|
#58
|
Let battle commence
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: England
Posts: 732
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Miccksey
why is it that all i can hear from most people is :
blablablabla im a Stu Pid@ss
If they chose for a certain option, so be it, and all of this because of a temp thingie, omg
|
Its a temp thing yes, but the new portal is also gonna be 1024, trying to follow on from comments about what users have said and trying to work with 800 res was making it all too crowded. So we discussed it and decided that now, in this day and age there aren't anywhere near as many PCs that cannot do 1024. Some users may refuse to use that res (someone moaning before, said he had a 17" monitor and used 640 *480, no offence, but if its that bad, perhaps an eye test might be an idea).
Personally, i don't see why there is so much fuss for moving forwards and improving things. Making things more spacious, but at the same time, increasing teh res needed. It could just be me that likes to use higher reses and stay away from 640/800. heh.
__________________
Mit
http://tim.igoe.me.uk - Development Blog
Whats on TV now - UK TV Guide
<Mendosa> mit is a cute cudlly toy that will be in the shops by christmas
<mig-work> ur now my eternal fav pa god
<Squiz> i name thee, Sir Mit
<Zeus> u my friend are a true gamer I knew u were
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 10:34
|
#59
|
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: An intricate fantasy world.
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yeggstry
Uncluttered (even when the text size in IE is made bigger)
Fits the page in 800*600
AND is readable by all (i.e NOT making the text VERY small like bbc, microsoft etc.)
|
lol, you mean your running your monitor at a resolution which makes it too hard to read the text on most popular sites (such as the bbc). Instead of boasting about how you run at such a l337 re501u710n why not drop your res to something that will let you read these sites comfortable, or buy a bigger monitor.
A Repeat from http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
Quote:
800x600 (XGA): this accounts for ~45% of page accesses, down from 51% a year ago. Some users surely have old PCs, with little video memory; the rest likely have PCs whose resolutions are set lower because (a) many new PCs default to a lower resolution, and (b) many PCs have monitors too small for readable higher-resolution text. The percentage will likely decrease steadily as higher resolution displays grow more common, but will remain popular for many years.
|
Do what you want though, I think it is a huge mistake that can be dealt with more efficiently with a proper think about layout design, and a change of the 'my way is best' mentality. The portal already has a horrible track record for usability - surely lessons would have been learned by now.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 10:37
|
#60
|
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: An intricate fantasy world.
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Originally posted by -CP-
Would be better to consentrate the discussion on gameplay and other more interesting subjects..
|
Not really possible with all the NDA malarky, any comments on anything will either be a: deleted for having too much info on rd10 or b: pointless as its discussion with too many guesses.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:04
|
#61
|
I am an idiot
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,145
|
I agree with Coffee. Everything should be able to be viewed comfortably on 800x600 resolution.
Its not the fact that peoples PC's can view at larger but its their preference that counts, and I know people who prefer to use the lower resolution.
Its also been pointed out that many people do not maximise all browser windows, especially when using PA. Since many people are now using 1024x768 it would make sense to design the pages to be used lower than that.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:07
|
#62
|
Connection Established...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 149
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Coffee
lol, you mean your running your monitor at a resolution which makes it too hard to read the text on most popular sites (such as the bbc). Instead of boasting about how you run at such a l337 re501u710n why not drop your res to something that will let you read these sites comfortable, or buy a bigger monitor.
A Repeat from http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
Do what you want though, I think it is a huge mistake that can be dealt with more efficiently with a proper think about layout design, and a change of the 'my way is best' mentality. The portal already has a horrible track record for usability - surely lessons would have been learned by now.
|
I have NOT boasted in this thread. Why dont you bother to read what I said before...?
As to quote a previous post that I made...
"In case you hadn't noticed, ALL of the professional sites that run in 800*600 have very small text (I looked at microsoft, yahoo and bbc to confirm this). If someone is sitting 6 feet away from the screen (I have a 14" at work and have perfect eyesight) the information on these sites is readable but not very easy on the eyes in 800*600 (I usually use 1280*1024 and that is even worse to see from 6 feet away). If someone that has poor eyesight is looking at these pages from 6 feet away I wouldn't be suprised if all they can see is a blur. Even when you change the text size it affects the layout of the page and THAT is the reason why people complain when the width isnt fixed."
meaning I TESTED bbc microsoft etc. in 800*600. Without changing the font size to make it bigger (therefore making the page look more cluttered) if I sat 6 feet awy it was tricky to see what I was trying to read. I feel sorry for the people that have bad eyesight (e.g. my dad ) that have to try and read those sites.
Yes, I do run 1280*1024 as the normal at work, but only coz that was the setting it was on when I "inherited" it :P I use 1024*768 at home because that is the max resolution that my TFT will work in (yes, its one of the earlier models :P) and I got the same results in 800*600. I even used my dad and his 19" monitor on some of the sites and he found it very difficult.
__________________
R2/3/4 - Unknown (STF Webmaster/TU Webmaster/Armada)
R5 - 36:10:16 (Armada)
R6 - 32:16:13 (ViruS)
R7 - 26:3:14 (Infection LT/ViruS TO) (#364 planet, #34 gal)
R8 - 4:3:1 then 3:8:4 (ViruS TO)
R9 - 47:10:5 (ViruS Gaming Community (VGC) Tech Op)
R9.5 - 23:6:4 (VGC Tech Op) (#462 planet)
R10 - 5:2:3 then 5:3:1 (ViruS/Eclipse, #419 planet), Portal Coder
R11 - retired from PA
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:13
|
#63
|
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: An intricate fantasy world.
Posts: 166
|
I fail to see your argument.
You claim pages designed for 800x600 are bad, as they have small text, but your also wanting people who use 800x600 to switch to 1024x768+, which will make the problem of reading the sites worse. I use 800x600 at home as I have a 14" and its the most comfortable resolution on the eye. going to 1024x768 your forcing people to essentially shrink the fonts on all other sites by a good few points.
And from your post it seems like your saying things get harder to read at 800x600. I'm marginally confused.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:30
|
#64
|
Connection Established...
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 149
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Coffee
I fail to see your argument.
You claim pages designed for 800x600 are bad, as they have small text, but your also wanting people who use 800x600 to switch to 1024x768+, which will make the problem of reading the sites worse. I use 800x600 at home as I have a 14" and its the most comfortable resolution on the eye. going to 1024x768 your forcing people to essentially shrink the fonts on all other sites by a good few points.
And from your post it seems like your saying things get harder to read at 800x600. I'm marginally confused.
|
The problem of reading the PLANETARION PORTAL (which is, after all what this thread is about) that is designed in 800*600 is that you are either going to have large, cluttered text or small text that is difficult to read at a distance. With the site being designed in 1024*768, there is the opportunity to make the font size bigger (from 6px on the bbc site to 10px on the PA Portal, easy to read for most ppl, even my dad ) without making it look cluttered, which Mit has taken. If you were to view the site in 800*600 you would have no problem seeing all of the text, the only problem would come is with the scrolling, coming back to deciding to put it in 800*600 (typical Catch 22 situation that always happens).
It is hard to read sites that are designed to run in 800*600, even at 800*600, because there is so much information that needs to be crammed onto one page. Take the bbc site for instance. If there was a quarter of the information on that page you could have the luxury of a bigger font that everyone could read.
But they do need that much information on there pages, for ease of use/navigation etc.
No matter what site you create, you HAVE to comprimise something, the only way to solve this would be to have two versions of the same site, but at different settings....
__________________
R2/3/4 - Unknown (STF Webmaster/TU Webmaster/Armada)
R5 - 36:10:16 (Armada)
R6 - 32:16:13 (ViruS)
R7 - 26:3:14 (Infection LT/ViruS TO) (#364 planet, #34 gal)
R8 - 4:3:1 then 3:8:4 (ViruS TO)
R9 - 47:10:5 (ViruS Gaming Community (VGC) Tech Op)
R9.5 - 23:6:4 (VGC Tech Op) (#462 planet)
R10 - 5:2:3 then 5:3:1 (ViruS/Eclipse, #419 planet), Portal Coder
R11 - retired from PA
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:41
|
#65
|
DarK_AnGeL^
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Cheshire, ph33r me
Posts: 73
|
or they could just leave it as it is and hope that the gimps who can't handle it go off and play something else and stop their incessant whining about trivialities ????
__________________
DarK_AnGeL^
Proud to have been in :
The Empire, Suicide Kings[TLoG], Wolfpack,
VtS, CpV, RAH, ND, Jenova, xVx, Ascendancy, Rainbows, Kittenz, Faceless, Ironborn and RED.
Played in rounds :
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,9.5,
20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 30, 31
71 - 85.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:55
|
#66
|
Ensign
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: An intricate fantasy world.
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Eternity
or they could just leave it as it is and hope that the gimps who can't handle it go off and play something else and stop their incessant whining about trivialities ????
|
<flame>
Or the people who have strong views and a desire to improve things can discuss it, and the gimps who think 'good enough is good enough' can either post a worthwhile suggestion or go back to their 'real life' that they like to boast about so often but never actually seem to use.
</flame>
Back to the point at hand...
I disagree with you on the BBC websites font. Its small, but not that hard to read. Its pretty much the standard size, and if you do go bigger the site ends up looking amateurish. Its a bit of a no win situation, but until the majority of sites move to 1024x768 I would stick with that as a standard.
I think this will be my last comment on the subject - anything more is pointless.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 11:55
|
#67
|
Slaphead Officer
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Camping outside PA HQ, Oslo, Norway
Posts: 47
|
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by A2
Believe me, this is only a temporary thing between r9 and the release of the proper r10 portal which I can assure you is a lot more sparkly and will allow us to do a lot more stuff.
Guess you'll have to wait and see for that though
Thanks to Mit for coding the PHP parts of this one, and Teas for providing us with a set of graphics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally posted by LFFPicard
Having this in place so that the people who respond to the advertising have something to look at, shouldnt it be more apealing to the eye? and look more professional..
or u might find all these new people responding to the advert, dismiss the site as a amature game not worth there time or money?
|
I repeat my last statement.
__________________
(@Zeus): current red a bit, but mostly brown
(@Prince|Lunch): can the women pay to see the white bits?
(@Zeus): dont have any
(@Zeus): nudest beach
(@Zeus): yes THAT WAS A JOKE, pls dont quote
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 15:23
|
#68
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mit
Another no-win situation.
Some maon the portal is too plain and boring. Some moan when its too graphical.
Some moan when it uses fixed widths (which it is going to for this round - 1024), some moan when its not fixed widths (why? pass)
As the majority of new computers and a lot of older ones, now support higher resolutions, it was decided as a group when we started designing the rnd 10 passport system to use that for the resolution of the portal.
The old portal, yes it was useful and very configurable, it still has its flaws. And trying to integrate into the passport system is not easy.
Just wait till you see the results before slagging it off so much, cos i hope you and the rest of teh community will like all the extra information that will be on the portal and associated parts.
|
Sorry to say this Mit but this is a BIG mistake. While I myself perfer fixed width sites, you should make sure you develop the site to be accessable to the largest number of people. Ok maybe you can discount 640*480 users now as this is very rare now but 800*600 is still extreamly common. Goto most schools, libaries and other public internet access points and they will have the systems locked to 800*600 even if they are able to run at 1024*768 and theres still a number of people who perfer to 800*600 view over the 1024*768 one.
If the design looks **** and cluttered in 800*600 then its the designers fault and it clearly needs redesigned. It should not be up to your customers to have to increase their screen size (and in many cases have to either buy a bigger monitor or better graphics card). Anything higher than 800*600 on a a CRT smaller than 17" really doesnt work and for some people your going to cause eye problems by forcing them too (Some Graphics cards and monitors will not run at 75hertz in 1024 and others will defualt at 60hertz at this resolution. Anything lower than 75hertz causes flicker in the image, it may be small enough that you dont notice it but it is happening. Prolonged use of a monitor doing this can cause eye strain ect)
Quote:
Our 486's monitor / graphics card combo could do better than that. and that was an 'average PC' 11 years ago.
|
Welcome to Mits fantasy World. Sorry but unless youve given it some upgrades ther 486 can not do 1024*768 at higher than 60hertz. In fact Youll be lucky if the original gfx card and monitor combo can actually do 800*600 in 60hertz.
We had this debate over the current fcrew site when one of our users with a around the P166 range couldnt get the site to work due to being unable to go above 640*480 at a decent refresh rate and I also know for the fact my £2500 P60 also couldnt do such resolutions and as you can tell from the price I paid top money for it to ensure it had the best of everything.
Planetarion isnt just a hobby any more, its a business and the sooner some of you PATeam members realise this, the better.
As a business things have to at least appear PROFESSIONAL and producing a site that only works in 1024+ would only be deemed professional if you worked for Microsoft. Hey why not go the whole hog and really reach m$ level by filling the pages with m$ technology like ActiveX which none m$ browsers will refuse to load.
You need to get a designer on board who has a CLUE about what Web Design and HCI is about and who is upto date with the facts and the current acceptable standards and then maybe you can start to look a bit more professional, not to mention we might get a portal which we all might want to use.
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 16:18
|
#69
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Leshy
Which brings me to my next point - the only thing which is not 800x600-compliant is going to be the portal. The game itself will still run fine in 800x600 without the need for any horizontal scrolling.
|
That's fine then.
(The only time I ever access the Portal is if I inadvertently follow a link to it - usually from these forums).
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 16:28
|
#70
|
Hamster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Crewe, England
Posts: 3,606
|
Quote:
Originally posted by ArcChas
That's fine then.
(The only time I ever access the Portal is if I inadvertently follow a link to it - usually from these forums).
|
Unless as this round they try and force you to login via the portal
__________________
Wakey
PD and Suggestions Moderator
Co-founder of [F-Crew]
The Farnborough Crew
Cos anything else is just an alliance
Join our public channel at #f-crew
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 18:31
|
#71
|
General (Adjective Army)
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Yorkshire, England.
Posts: 825
|
As long as they're as successful as they were this round I won't really mind.
__________________
Amnion (aka The Arcane Chas of Arcania) - Playing PA under those and other pseudonyms every genuine round since Round 2. Most recently (and insignificantly):
Onset of Apathy R94 | Stacks of Resources R95 | The Necromancer of Dol Guldur R96
70 Years of Queen Elizabeth R97 | Worst of The Worst R98
Knights of the Green Shield R99 | Look Out of The Window R100 | Most of All R102
Hard of Hearing (2:7:1) R103 | The Lateness of Your Application (1:6:6) R104 | Kinnison of Tellus (5:1:2) R105
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 20:12
|
#72
|
lippy bint
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: #cootie
Posts: 162
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Yeggstry
"Big Graphics" means the 3D kind of animation that are used in modern non-browser games […]
I haven't seen any 3D animation in the style on ANY web site to the detail of games like Unreal Tournament 2003, have u??
|
I was about 75% certain you'd misunderstand the phrase "big graphics" to mean file size rather than pixel dimensions. Yet, I trusted you'd be bright enough to get it given the entire discussion was about image and page layout dimensions and not in any way about file sizes. Guess I was wrong
Not to mention I'm getting a bit tired of your condescending attitude, especially since you are condescending about things you haven't even grasped correctly.
To spell it out, the phrase "big graphics" in this discussion means dimensions of the image or page design. eg, 1024 x 768 or 800 x 600 or whatnot. As far as actual file sizes go, I give thanks and congratulations to current and past designers for making files that load quickly. It's always been a happy surprise amidst all the frames and frame scrollbars to see that at least the graphics load up zippy
Quote:
Originally posted by Yeggstry
If you can think of a way of creating the portal that is:
Uncluttered (even when the text size in IE is made bigger)
Fits the page in 800*600
AND is readable by all (i.e NOT making the text VERY small like bbc, microsoft etc.)
then I suggest you PM Mit, I am sure he is more than willing to hear your suggestion....
|
Yeah, that's exactly the way it works in rl too.
1) Client asks for something
2) You tell the client to show you how to do it
My living would be so much easier to make if I could just throw the ball back in my clients' court whenever they asked me to do something. What a great idea! Thanks!
[edit: AND ANOTHER THING! lol]
Quote:
Originally posted by Yeggstry
Designing the Human-Computer interface on the screen has very little to do with the ease of code behind it. Anyone that can code a dynamic site can easily produce a simple easy-to-read and easy-to-use interface (for example, for a poll system) in about 20 lines of code.
|
You wrote this in response to my explaining that clients often request things that seem difficult. And I'm not really sure I get it. Correct me if I am wrong, but first you were saying that it would be near impossible to code a portal that would fit on 800 x 600, and now you say that it should be easy? Plus it doesn't seem to make sense in the context of designing things to meet user needs. How does coding relate to that?
Quote:
Originally posted by Leshy
Especially among people who play games, 1024x768 is a standard resolution. Even most 14" screens can still display 1024x768. The ever-increasing 15" TFT screens are 1024x768 native, not to mention 17" CRT/TFT screens. It is highly unlikely that anyone will not be able to run 1024x768.
|
I can run 1024 x 768 at 75Hz. However, since I can run 800 x 600 at 95Hz I tend to do so as that nice high refresh rate is much easier on the eyes. In that vein, I assume for most users it's not a question of "can they" but "do they choose to." So I hope all the "omg you loser stuck in 1992 buy a new monitor!!!!1123" posts (not that yours is ) can stop now.
Quote:
Originally posted by Leshy
Which brings me to my next point - the only thing which is not 800x600-compliant is going to be the portal. The game itself will still run fine in 800x600 without the need for any horizontal scrolling.
|
THANK YOU. It will be such a nice change being able to run the game in 800 x 600 without scrolling after all these rounds.
Hell, go ahead and make the portal 3k pixels wide, I don't care, never use it, nothing I want or need is on it anyway, just as long as the thing I spend 99% my PA time in, ie the game interface, is clean.
__________________
12:17 AM: Cochese: if PA team was a liquor, they'd be that plastic-half gallon for $8 stuff
Last edited by Parthos; 8 Aug 2003 at 21:01.
|
|
|
8 Aug 2003, 20:36
|
#73
|
Ex EL High Command
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 126
|
Quote:
Welcome to Mits fantasy World. Sorry but unless youve given it some upgrades ther 486 can not do 1024*768 at higher than 60hertz. In fact Youll be lucky if the original gfx card and monitor combo can actually do 800*600 in 60hertz.
|
My PC has a Compaq v410 14" monitor, I run 1024x768x60
At college yes, our machines run @ 800x600x60hz, even on 17" monitors..
A quick look at this site proceeds:
http://www.virtualdebris.co.uk/denye...freshrates.htm
that our college is breaking health and safety regulations, as all thier monitors ARE flickery as hell.
so I have both worlds. I would prefer to scroll you dont need to see the far left menu to read what's on the portal. If you click your mouse scroll wheel in, move ur mouse left and right with the little icon that will apear, it will scroll for you.
I don't want a cluttered portal..
==>As for tactitus, who wants a text only based game, use opera, and cross the images button
__________________
________________________________________
m00
|
|
|
15 Sep 2003, 22:40
|
#74
|
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Wearing Speedos
Posts: 1,021
|
Does anyone really care about the portal?
I mean the only links i ever use are login and the forum index pages.
The only time i have visited the portal recently is to see what all the fuss is about from reading this thread.
The portal has always been a waste of resources.
|
|
|
15 Sep 2003, 23:07
|
#75
|
Love's Sweet Exile
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Living on a Stair (Now Sword-less)
Posts: 2,371
|
Does the big X really need to be a 400(ish?) pixel square?
If that was cut down, and the buttons at the top (lo Clipart!) made a more reasonable size (or put on the sidebar...) then it would save a lot of space.
A text(+advert if really necessary)-only version would also be nice...
__________________
--SYMM--
Ba Ba Ti Ki Di Do
|
|
|
15 Sep 2003, 23:49
|
#76
|
Toyboy
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: At Home
Posts: 190
|
Quote:
Originally posted by Mit
Our 486's monitor / graphics card combo could do better than that. and that was an 'average PC' 11 years ago.
|
He, my graphics card can do resolutions that my monitor can't, graphics card isn't the only element.
__________________
The Ministry
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 14:10.
| |