<p>
[quote]
reading this makes me laugh, of how much you guys actually know about computers, same goes for any computer thread.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why? Because we know very little, or too much?</p>
<p>MacTech,</p>
<p>That severely limits your resolution options, though. Why have a decent vid card if you can't display higher than 800x600 or 1024x768? Legacy hardware is nice if you're an enthusiast, but otherwise...</p>
<p>Yes, I know the resolution is limited...</p>
<p>iBook G4: 1024 x 768
iBook G3: 800 x 600
Color Classic: 512 x 384</p>
<p>However, I like low resolution because the text is larger and easier to read.</p>
<p>What if you want to do work on large image files, or actually want space on your desktop? I mean, I know you love your little Mac, but it seems that you're also awfully limited in the programs you can run on it.</p>
<p>resolution != size. Res:dimension RATIO is important.</p>
<p>That said, im running 1280x768 on my 10" fujitsu laptop...I'd say that in terms of the preferred text size, I'm way on the opposite side of MT.</p>
<p>:)</p>
<p>Karthikkito,</p>
<p>Point taken. Who wants 1600x1200 when you're using a 12"er?</p>
<p>Switch to a notebook completely.
If you know how to organize, the difference between a CRT and a flat screen monitor is nominal.
And you can take notebooks with you on vacations...</p>
<p>Ah, large photos. I do a lot of detail work, so it's nice to have low res. Same for desktop publishing. I've published many newsletters on 512 x 384 screens and some of my best Photoshop jobs have come from 800 x 600.</p>
<p>I don't have any programs that require a huge screen, but then again I don't play many games at all--mostly card games, chess, that kind of stuff. Not into 3D shoot em up games at all...I hate first person shooters so much I'd rather play Math Blaster or something</p>
<p>What if you want to watch video files?</p>
<p>And not all games are FPSs. There are plenty of non-shooters that look much better in higher resolutions.</p>
<p>I just can't see why you cling to legacy hardware. Especially when the newer Macs are so much nicer. The options that you have with OSX seem too good to pass on...</p>
<p>By the way, you can do detail work in higher resolutions. It's called "zoom."</p>
<p>Both of my iBooks do indeed run OS X. The CC is my only real piece of legacy hardware that sits on my desk. I use all the modern stuff (like Airport) but I love my CC...it looks awesome plus I have a few older programs that only run on it (the iBooks won't take them or have issues with them).</p>
<p>Zoom works, but everything else is still sort of small at such a high resolution...I like my tools to be visible to my eye and in easy reach...I've never understood those 30" screens...they look impressive but first off, most desks aren't big enough to have them within comfortable viewing distance, and second, my TV is smaller (24") and I think it would be rediculous to have a monitor of that size.</p>
<p>Video files do play nicely on smaller monitors. Remember, fifty years ago most TVs were really small too and people managed.</p>
<p>Just because people used something 50 years ago doesn't mean I want to join them.</p>
<p>Fifty years ago, people didn't have color TVs. I don't want to go back to B&W anytime soon. </p>
<p>I'm not saying that we should all get 30" screens. But anything smaller than 15" just seems limiting to me, especially if you want to do anything that runs best on 1024x768 or larger.</p>
<p>UCLAri, I see you're from Japan. Is it true that some old Macs have cultlike followings over there? I remember reading about something like that once.</p>
<p>Read my profile.</p>
<p>Oh, and yes. But 90% of Japanese have awful little Celeron POS desktops. Computing is so behind here.</p>