No thx mate, I got google & TinyEye
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x1080 i need
everything i write is a ramble and should not be taken seriously.... seriously. ♥
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
but have this anyway
GPU? I would be using 1920x1200 if my monitor supported it. But alas, it's 1680x1050.Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
but have this anyway
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/33829 … pletl5.jpg
Nah, you're just a slacker.Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
My laptop display is 1920x1080 (Lenovo T61p), as are both my PC displays.
Too many years of CAD work on low-res screens is hard on the eyes.
what Cad progs, rdx?
Pfft. 1920x1200 on my 17" LED backlit LCD laptop. Awesome for photo editing on the go.rdx-fx wrote:
Nah, you're just a slacker.Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
My laptop display is 1920x1080 (Lenovo T61p), as are both my PC displays.
Too many years of CAD work on low-res screens is hard on the eyes.
Autocad (from r9.. damn, I'm feeling old), Solidworks, Pro/Eburnzz wrote:
what Cad progs, rdx?
I have a 16:9 1920 screen and a 1920 16:10 screen, do I win some kind of fag prize?Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
but have this anyway
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/33829 … pletl5.jpg
Well having a 16:9 1920x1080 scores you two fag points. Having a 16:10 scores you -1 fag point, but since it's 1920 gives you another.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I have a 16:9 1920 screen and a 1920 16:10 screen, do I win some kind of fag prize?Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fagstazz. wrote:
not big enough.
1920x1080 i need
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
but have this anyway
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/33829 … pletl5.jpg
You have a net gain of 2 Fag rating.
Compared to mine (-2) you're quite a fag.
Smokers in the house?....
well you have those 2 1280x1024s, so you're pure fag.Finray wrote:
Well having a 16:9 1920x1080 scores you two fag points. Having a 16:10 scores you -1 fag point, but since it's 1920 gives you another.TimmmmaaaaH wrote:
I have a 16:9 1920 screen and a 1920 16:10 screen, do I win some kind of fag prize?Finray wrote:
16:9 is for fags
1920x is for fags with too much cash to spend on their GPU
but have this anyway
http://static.bf2s.com/files/user/33829 … pletl5.jpg
You have a net gain of 2 Fag rating.
Compared to mine (-2) you're quite a fag.
?Ilocano wrote:
Smokers in the house?....
1280x1024 is leet.
Meh, since I got my 1680x1050 I've wondered how I got by on my 1280x1024, shits' nearly square dude...Finray wrote:
1280x1024 is leet.
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
I've got my 1280x1024 sitting as a secondary monitor, and yes it is square
I've done the same with mine,,, we have the same setup except my 1680x1050 is a 20"Finray wrote:
I've got my 1280x1024 sitting as a secondary monitor, and yes it is square
I stopped using my old monitor though, 512mb of ATi choked in games when running duals
Now it's connected to my print server, which means I never use it...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
fuck y'all, I have a 1600x1200 primary and a 1280x1024 secondaryFinray wrote:
I've got my 1280x1024 sitting as a secondary monitor, and yes it is square
We got 1680x1050 & 1280x1024...CammRobb wrote:
fuck y'all, I have a 1600x1200 primary and a 1280x1024 secondaryFinray wrote:
I've got my 1280x1024 sitting as a secondary monitor, and yes it is square
which you'd know if you'd kept up with the thread...
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
1600x1200 is a lot less square though. Look at this image, turned the other way.
Finray wrote:
1600x1200 is a lot less square though. Look at this image, turned the other way.
http://www.koalafish.com/pics/pigeon_su … 0x1600.jpg
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me
Thanks for that not-really-related-to-my-point picture, Floppz.
Meh it's 23:27 and I'm ~8 hours of sleep short this week in total...Finray wrote:
Thanks for that not-really-related-to-my-point picture, Floppz.
What I meant so state with above picture... is that it doesn't get much more square than 5:4
except for my 320x320 Smartphone, but that hardly counts :p
Your thoughts, insights, and musings on this matter intrigue me