These days, technology is getting faster, and computer monitors and screens are getting larger and larger. Now, we have 101-inch TVs, 17-inch laptops, and desktops with multiple monitors. 1024*768 is the lowest resolution that most, if not all monitors support, but that’s really bad. There are a few reasons why you should upgrade to 640*480 pixel resolution:
- 640*480 was the original- All other screen resolutions were cheap copies of this resolution and were produced out of human greed and want
- 640*480 is more compact- I bet that you can fit a 640*480 resolution monitor into an iPhone or BlackBerry Storm. You can’t do that with 1024*768. When technology improves further, a 640*480 resolution monitor can fit easily in the palm of your hands.
- You don’t have to glue together monitors to get 640*480- To get higher resolutions, some people like to hook up adjacent monitors. This is a real hassle and a waste of time. You have to align the monitors, calibrate, and make sure that the color is the same on each monitor. It’s not as easy as it sounds. On the other hand, a 640*480 resolution can be obtained with out gluing together 16 monitors
- It’s the best resolution for people with nearsightedness- On a 1280*1024 monitor, a picture often looks tiny if it’s not very high-res. On a 640*480 monitor, however, the picture will appear much larger, and thus easier to see
- 640*480 = 4:3 aspect ratio- Widescreen monitors were designed to simulate Asian eyesight, and most of you aren’t Asian. 640*480 simulates European vision
- It’s easier to multiply a 3-digit number by another 3-digit number
- Large screens take up too much space and aren’t portable
- Large screens can cost a ton of money
- Large screens are heavy
- Large screens are harder to repair
- Large screens cost too much to repair
- Large screens can kill people- Not so long ago, an infant who was sitting under an HDTV was killed when it fell on the poor baby
- Large screens emit more radiation- Think about it? Which produces more radiation; an iPhone or a huge monitor?
- Large screens are harder to hide and therefore, a target for thieves and burglars
- It takes more time to count the number of pixels on a 1024*768 monitor than it does to count the number of pixels on a 640*480 monitor
If it’s not possible to get such a heavenly 640*480 screen resolution, your next best bet is 800*600. Although that resolution may be only supported on a little bit larger monitors, it’s definitely smaller than the demonic 1024*768 resolutions or worse, 1280*1024 (we don’t even want to talk about anything above that). Make a smart choice. Sometimes smaller is better.
Of course an Iphone produces more radiation, since its got a radio interface: now is that good or bad?
Oh I had no clue that this was a joke… I learned that I should take you seriously over the past year.
Also, a point worth noting: 1024×1280 is a good resolution. Get a monitor that rotates and have it sideways. It’s great for reading and web browsing since 1024 is wide enough for basically all web pages.
The sad part is that in windows you can’t set it to 640*480 with the display control panel. You have to use a driver specific thing (like ATI CCC) to get 640*480. I do, however, use 640*480 when I have an old game that is limited in resolution. For example, if the game is limited to 1920×1200 in a window, I can set my 3 central monitors to 640*480 and the game stretches nicely across all 3.
However, on a Mac you can. That’s one good thing.
One more thing: if you use a driver-specific utility, you can often set a VGA monitor to any resolution, even ABOVE the native res. Most cards will go up to 2048×1536 on VGA connections and 2560×1600 on DVI connections.
Edited by Author (removed unwanted material, copyrighted material and advertising)
The title is “Why 640*480 is Still the Best Screen Resolution”… But more than one of your “facts” have nothing to do with the resolution itself. The resolution, 640×480, sucks. 720, 1080, 1280, etc. are actually competent; meaning you can read and see everything on-screen, unlike the SD. Also, SDTV’s are generally larger, meaning CRT and other larger television and monitor types.
Here are my other rants on your “facts”.
HD resolution is not a “cheap copy”!!! You saying that HD compared to SD is a “cheap copy”. And the original isn’t always the best. For example, the original version of Windows (or Mac OS for that matter) was, disputably, better than the current Vista.
You can fit a HD resolution in a 10″ screen or a 60″ screen. You can also do virtually the same with an SDTV. And anyway, most smartphones only have a 480-by-320 resolution.
You don’t need to reach a HD resolution by gluing 16 monitors. My HDTV is one monitor. You also calibrate SD monitors.
My near sighted friend, Anthony, couldn’t see the TV at all on my old non-HD TV. In high-res, he can see everything, even if it still is a bit blurry without going closer to the TV. High-res is good.
I can hardly see 640:480. High-res is much better than SD, no matter what your race. SD used to be standard for me, but when I’m viewing something like a DVD or playing an Xbox 360 game, HD is an unfortunate guilty must.
Is a large CRT SD monitor any more portable or take up and less space?
Is a large CRT SD monitor any lighter than a thin and compact HD screen? This also has nothing to do with why standard definition is somehow magically better than high definition.
Well, there are large SD screens and there are large HD screens. This ALSO has nothing to do with why the resolution is better.
Nobody is going to die by the very small amount of radiation transmitted from an HDTV. There’s more radiation in today’s air than the amount produced by a television set.
I doubt that anybody in the history prevented their TV from being stolen simply because it was smaller and the resolution in high definition.
Only you would take the time to individually count the pixels.
Overall, this has done nothing to prove that standard definition is better than high definition. You can get an HDTV upgrade for only a few hundred bucks which is a big deal compared to standard definition.
Despite the fact that this post was intended to be a joke and not taken seriously, the post has generated much controversy. Do you really think that I would like a 640*480 resolution for my computer? Absolutely not. I won’t argue with you on your rants, but in the future, please keep your comments more concise.
640×480 is still used by many games, and if you set a game to 640×480 it will run a lot faster. If you set a CRT to 680×480 you can crank up the vertical refresh rate for ultra-smooth motion.
Your logic is flawed. Setting a screen to a lower resolution makes things easier to see. And besides, large (>=30″) TVs (HD or otherwise) have a horrible resolution for their size. A 30″ 2560×1600 monitor is about 100 DPI. A 50″ 1080i/p monitor is 44 dpi. Also, LCDs suck for interlaced video, and interlaced video get *much* smoother motion. LCDs have to deinterlace it, CRTs can display it unaltered by scanning it interlaced rather than progressively.
On top of that, LCD resolutions suck no matter what it is. A 22″ LCD might be able to run at 1680×1050, or maybe even 1920×1080, but there were many 22″ CRTs that could display 2048×1536.
Oh, also, if the shielding in a CRT were to break, the flying glass and/or the radiation could potentially kill you.
I have 1280×1024 on my mac, 1280×800 on my laptop, basically, as high as I can crank the resolution, it’s going that high.
Nah, I don’t believe this very much. HD is really a big difference compared to SD, when it comes to things like YouTube, Xbox 360, and Blu Ray, HDTV’s and 720p/1080p HD resolution make a big impact in my opinion.
Good post, though.
1080p isn’t even that high of a resolution, try 2560×1600, or get 3 2560×1600 monitors, put them on their side, and you get 4800×2560. And there are screens that do 3840×2400.
I want one of thems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221
IBM making monitors? *gasp*
But HD takes a long time to transfer over the Internet (forgot to mention that). 640*480 loads up the fastest.
Oh, and by the way, CRTs are still better than LCDs in some ways. Just be sure to get one better than 640×480.
But CRT monitors emit even more radiation. And you still don’t believe me when I say 640*480 is better
But LCDs look like crap if you run them at a lower resolution than they were meant to be run at. CRTs don’t. And CRTs have other advantages, like super high refresh rates, which is a great feature for gaming.
“640*480 = 3:2 aspect ratio”
You fail at basic math. 640/480=4/3.
Argh… I’m so stupid. I changed it though.
And besides, 1280×1024 is 5:4, which is even less widescreen. On this machine, I have three 1650×1080 (16:10) and two 1280×1024 (5:4) and I have to say I use the small ones more since they are closer to me. I prefer gaming on the big ones though, since they are bigger and have a higher resolution.