Do you have a monitor with 1024x768 res. or better for civ 3? - Page 3

yin26 · October 18, 2001, 04:38

LOL! It's a Trinitron. And it HAS improved my sex life. More information than you wanted to know, I think.

LaRusso · October 18, 2001, 05:05

wow. i never had sex with a computer screen

1Razor · October 18, 2001, 05:46

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Falconius

Most people should be able to change their settings, but they just don't realize it. It's a Windows 98 feature (maybe Win 95 too.) Here's how to change your settings to 1024 x 768:

Click Start
Click Settings
Click Control Panel
Double-click Display icon
Click Settings tab
Move the "Screen Area" tab a notch or two to the right until it says "1024 x 768"
Click Apply.
Answer yes to any questions it asks.

A much quicker way is to 'Right Click' on the desktop and select properties which takes straight to the relevant box then select
Settings etc....

Hope this helps someone.

Adm.Naismith · October 18, 2001, 05:53

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
LOL! It's a Trinitron. And it HAS improved my sex life. More information than you wanted to know, I think.

May be more info than your wife wants to know...

Yin, in a sweet voice tone:
Honey, while you are sending mail, enjoying that new monitor, I'm going out for a walk to the pub...

A few minutes later, Yin was drinking at a Strip & Lap Dance, surrounded by many girls barely wearing anything but shoes and laces... (sorry, next part must be censored under any know law)

Come on Yin, tell us more about the Trinitron great colours and resolution. Really.

Edit: part removed to mitigate the disgusting of Yin, mentioned in his post below.

Oh my, I'm in a strange mood today. Better I stop here or the moderators will ban me for a week...

yin26 · October 18, 2001, 06:10

Hey, give that guy a vacation! That was DISGUSTING!

LaRusso · October 18, 2001, 06:28

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Hey, give that guy a vacation! That was DISGUSTING!

i certainly hope not

hola admiral

Bleyn · October 18, 2001, 10:24

On the subject of getting older monitors to go up to resolutions they say they can go at, but people haven't been able to get them to go to....

There are a couple of things I can add that I haven't seen people mention before. I worked in TS for a company that made video cards for a while, and these two steps are among the first things we always told people to do(or made sure they had done)...

1. Make sure you have the latest drivers for your video card. If its an older card and you have a newer version of Windows, it may already have the latest drivers installed, but check just to be sure. And don't just check the website of the video card maker. If you know the manufacturer of the chipset its based on, check their website too. They may have reference drivers that are newer than the board manufacturer's.

2. Make sure you have the correct INF installed for your monitor. If Win9x does not know what refresh rates and resolutions your monitor is capable of, it may not allow you to try using some of the higher rates. And the only way Windows can know this info is by having the correct INF file installed.

You would not believe how many people I dealt with who would buy a nice fancy new video card, then call and complain it wasn't working right, yet had never bothered to make sure their monitor was installed correctly in Win9x. Be aware, however, that finding the right INF file can be a bit of a pain with some of the smaller companies.

These two simple steps may greatly improve the performance of your video card and monitor.

Ozymandous · October 18, 2001, 10:33

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso

sounds like one of those TV shop infomercials

what is the brand of your monitor, i am buying one

Nah, what Yin said was the typical response people have when they see a 19" or 21" monitor after they have squinted at their dinky 15" monitor for years.

I have known people (my mother even) who bought a 17" or bigger monitor just because she was tired of having to squint.

LaRusso · October 18, 2001, 10:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Nah, what Yin said was the typical response people have when they see a 19" or 21" monitor after they have squinted at their dinky 15" monitor for years.

I have known people (my mother even) who bought a 17" or bigger monitor just because she was tired of having to squint.

hm. perhaps when i have desktop at home. also, i doubt that i can persuade people at work here to buy me a flat 17''. stingy bastards, bean counters

Ozymandous · October 18, 2001, 10:48

Well a flat screen 17" will run you roughly $900-$1000, but a "regular" 17" is inexpensive (comparatively)

Satis5d · October 18, 2001, 11:40

The obligatory CivIII upgrade is now complete!

Bring it on.

(I suppose the next upgrade will come in about 5 more years, just in time for CivIV

)

Solver · October 18, 2001, 12:49

Quote:

Well.... You get nothing but the ability to see more, have higher resolutions and, of
course, run Civ3 as it was intended.

I only get the ability to run Civ 3. And all in all, the monitor costs about the same as Civ 3. I wouldn't use higher resolution than 800x600 awyway, for my Windows desktop - everything looks so darn small then.

Also, remember I don't live in USA. I live in a former Soviet country. It's surely quite advanced, compared to other ex-Soviet countries, but not that good at all.

As for saying about Lemons I was partially joking. I don't have anything wrong with the Americans at all.

New monitor reduces eye strain? Huh. I've been using this monitor for several hours a day each day for the last 6 years, and I still got an absolutely excellent sight. I can see very small details, and I can see very far - I can't tell you the results because, AFAIK, you have another sight-test-system.

Quote:

Why replace something while it still serves its purpose?

Just my take on the monitor. It server for its purpose.

As a sysadmin, I certainly know how to change screen resolution. Some told me though it's possible to have a virtual desktop for windows. It would certainly save me the headache.

I believe it would even be possible to get a new monitor (almost) for free, but I'll not. I'm protesting and boyoctting Firaxis! And I announce myself president of the official Apolyton 800x600 club!

At least I see I'm not the only one with that thought. Paiktis 22, come here!

I demand a 800x600 patch from Firaxis OR a clear explanation of why do they think 1024x768 is the only way to go. One or another. Otherwise, my rants will be very loud, on each thread of any forum

.

connorkimbro · October 18, 2001, 14:37

Solver, tell me WHY should Firaxis, or any company work to make their products backwards compatable, when you (or whatever other person that has old equipment) CLEARLY in the minority?

My parents still have an oooooold 486 mhz computer. Should Firaxis also make the game backwards compatible for them, just to make sure they can play it too? of course not.

For whatever strange reason, one that you won't even talk about, you refuse to buy a new monitor. That's fine. But don't expect Firaxis to listen to you, as MOST people either are fine, or are willing to upgrade to keep up with the times.

Blake · October 18, 2001, 16:46

Question is... should I upgrade my clunky 2 year old AMD-K6-2 400 to a 1.4GHz system...
I thinking I should, with all the new animations and stuff.

Bleyn · October 18, 2001, 20:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver

Quote:

Well.... You get nothing but the ability to see more, have higher resolutions and, of
course, run Civ3 as it was intended.

I only get the ability to run Civ 3. And all in all, the monitor costs about the same as Civ 3. I wouldn't use higher resolution than 800x600 awyway, for my Windows desktop - everything looks so darn small then.

Small? Have you ever used a 17" or 19" monitor? I did a little math, and by my estimate, on a 17" monitor 1024x768 should actually appear a bit Larger than 800x600 on a 13" monitor. Yes, Larger. And on a 19" monitor, you should be able to go up to 1280x1024 with only a very slight reduction in percieved size compared to your monitor.

And no, its not just math. I have a 14" monitor. I use it at 1024x768. My parents is a 17" and they use it at 1024x768 also. It it drives me nuts because everything is just enough larger that I want to push the res. up a notch or two.

And yes, they will reduce eye-strain. Size isn't everything when it comes to eye-strain and monitors. Refresh rate is also very important. The higher the refresh rate, the easier it is on the eyes. Newer monitors are capable of being driven at much higher refresh rates than older monitors. And if you are using a 17" or 19" at 1024x768 or 1280x1024 and a decent modern, it should be capable of being driven at rates upwards of 125hz or higher. Rates that undoutably your 13" monitor would die if you tried to use.

BTW, in a previous post you mentioned seeing the usefulness of upgrading everything in a computer except the monitor. Does this include the video card? If so, is your video card one with more than 8megs of RAM?

dainbramaged13 · October 18, 2001, 20:23

Geez, 132 to 10, who do these guys think they are! making a game that 7% of people cant enjoy! those BASTARDS!

kinda one-sided, huh?

squid · October 18, 2001, 21:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Nemo
my gaming machine: 1600x1200 @ 75Mhz max
my laptop: 1024x768
my old PII 266: 1280x1024 @ 65Mhz ( <--and i got this monitor for $15!!!)
my still working AMD-486dx: 800x600 @60Mhz (<-- and i got this monitor was for free!)

Unless you have alien technology, that is just plain Hertz.

Akron · October 18, 2001, 21:57

I've got a 15" laptop screen at 1600x1200 in front of me right now, and yes I can easily see everything well (I could fit four 800x600s on this screen), even though my vision is far from perfect. If you increase the resolution and change some of the windows appearance settings, it doesn't appear too small.

I couldn't imagine going back to 800x600 now, there would be so little workspace and detail! I'd have to say that investing a little more money on a better monitor goes a long way. For most tasks on the computer, it doesn't make a difference whether the chip is a P4- 1.5 ghz or 2.0 ghz. But the jump from a 15" to a 19" monitor costs about the same but makes a HUGE difference.

Nemo · October 19, 2001, 02:06

Quote:

Originally posted by squid
Unless you have alien technology, that is just plain Hertz.

LOL! you're right...opps. sorry, i've been shopping for a new processor lately. hehe.

Nemo · October 19, 2001, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Blake
Question is... should I upgrade my clunky 2 year old AMD-K6-2 400 to a 1.4GHz system...
I thinking I should, with all the new animations and stuff.

i have a pII 450, and i have been asking the same thing: is it worth upgrading the processor for my games and compilers? well this is what i have come to: to get a 1.2GHz (or whatever) processor, I will also need a new mobo. now when i get the new mobo I will have to find onw that is backwards compatabel with my 512Mb of SDRAM 122Mhz ram (thats what speed it tests at, its o/c pc100 or something...i have never figured it out) now when i get the new mobo it will have a front end bus of like 800Mhz (or there about)which means that all of the speed will be bottle necked by the slower ram. therefore i will have to get DDRAM or the more expensive RambusRAM to utilize the full CPU speed and lessen the bottleneck effect. now i am looking at another 512Mb of DDR or Rambus. However, since i have a GeForce2 GTS that has its own processor of sort, which takes some of the computations away form the main cpu which means that the 450 is now like maybe a 550 or 600Mhz equivilant. so upgrading is getting too expensive with all the extras to make it truly worth it, and the GeForce balances it all out, anyway. i'll wait for unreal2 to upgrade the processor et al.

i just bought max payne, and it says that 450 is the min req. and 700 is the recomended. well, i can play it at full graphics without any noticable slow downs, or hic-ups. there is only one feature i cannot change and that is bilinear -> trilinear becuase that causes lag. but i cant see what the difference is anyway :shrug: ...so, imho, i say no, it is not worth the upgrade.

Adm.Naismith · October 19, 2001, 03:15

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Hey, give that guy a vacation! That was DISGUSTING!

Ok Yin, I edited and removed the disgusting part of my post... or at least the part I agree it was disgusting

LaRusso: Ciao!

About upgrade: With games like Civ III, I guess the main strain to the PC will be on the memory (specially with huge maps, late in the game filled with units and cities).

Any CPU upgrade can help the AI turn to be faster, of course, but nothing really relevant if not into above mentioned condition.

A cheap solution: learn to play very well and win the game early, when the PC is not stressed

LaRusso · October 19, 2001, 04:41

hm, my main concern is the longevity of the laptop battery

7 hr in a train without a damn plug

4 times a month

it better be good

Adm.Naismith · October 19, 2001, 05:51

Quote:

Originally posted by LaRusso
hm, my main concern is the longevity of the laptop battery

7 hr in a train without a damn plug

4 times a month

1) Buy a spare battery and install the game fully on HD: if the game force you to still have the CD in place for anti-piracy you at least avoid some CD access (it's a strain on the battery, you know).
If the game don't check the CD and you can, remove the CD Drive and place in the spare battery for uninterrupt source of power.

Don't forget to:

2) Buy some medicine to help your eyes: 7hr playing a game will stress your eyes really a lot

Earthling7 · October 19, 2001, 07:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Well a flat screen 17" will run you roughly $900-$1000, but a "regular" 17" is inexpensive (comparatively)

WHAT??? I am in Europe and I bought one for $450...

When I bought my first "modern" PC in September 1994, the salesman gave me a good advice. Get the best monitor you can afford. If you have a tight budget, save on other things to get a better monitor. The processor will be too slow in two years, the memory insufficient, but the monitor will survive a few CPUs. And he was right. I bought a 15" monitor, instead of the standard 14". It is now used by my sister, performing as well as it ever did.

I upgraded in 2000, buying, again, the best I could reasonably afford. The choice was between a top-of-the-range 17" and a standard 19". I went for the 17". It's a Trinitron, flat, beautiful. I'm sure I'll be using it for the best part of a decade. I can stare at it for hours without feeling my eyes turning into cotton coated golf balls, unlike others I have used.

My advice is simple. Buy the best monitor you can possibly afford. It will grow old with you, gracefully, and it is a waste buying a standard one, only to replace it out of frustration while it still works.

And Solver, if you bought a high-speck 15" monitor in 1994, it should easily display 1024x768. I never used my old one at lower resolution. I even got it to function at 1280x1024, although it wasn't pretty

Solver · October 20, 2001, 10:18

I'll have no choice but to upgrade, sooner or later, wish I it or not

.

However, I can as well ask why is Firaxis only requiring 32 MB RAM for Civ 3? Who has 32 MB RAM now? Everyone has at least 64, most have 128, and enough have 256! Still oI'll have no choice but to upgrade, sooner or later, wish I it or not

.

However, I can as well ask why is Firaxis only requiring 32 MB RAM for Civ 3? Who has 32 MB RAM now? Everyone has at least 64, most have 128, and enough have 256! Still only 32 is required.

BTW, how much does a monitor cost?nly 32 is required.

Sabre2th · October 20, 2001, 14:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
I'll have no choice but to upgrade, sooner or later, wish I it or not

.

However, I can as well ask why is Firaxis only requiring 32 MB RAM for Civ 3? Who has 32 MB RAM now? Everyone has at least 64, most have 128, and enough have 256! Still oI'll have no choice but to upgrade, sooner or later, wish I it or not

.

However, I can as well ask why is Firaxis only requiring 32 MB RAM for Civ 3? Who has 32 MB RAM now? Everyone has at least 64, most have 128, and enough have 256! Still only 32 is required.

BTW, how much does a monitor cost?nly 32 is required.

Having difficulties? Or is this some strange sort of rant?

Bleyn · October 20, 2001, 14:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
I'll have no choice but to upgrade, sooner or later, wish I it or not

.

However, I can as well ask why is Firaxis only requiring 32 MB RAM for Civ 3? Who has 32 MB RAM now? Everyone has at least 64, most have 128, and enough have 256!

BTW, how much does a monitor cost?

Acutally, if you look at the Civ3 sys. reqs. taken as a whole, most of the requirements make sense. Effectively, what their reqs. call for is the equivelent of a complete system purchased 3 years ago. (Except for the DirectX part of course)

And 3 years ago, 32 megs of RAM was pretty much standard in what the major computer manufacturers shipped. The same with video resolution. A complete system purchased 3 years ago would have supported 1024x768.

I'm sure they probably did some testing, and the stats represent what they consider minimum adequate performance, but I do find it amusing that what would have been fairly well top of the line when they started development is their minimum now.

And I can't say for sure about Europe, but in the US, a 15" monitor would set you back between $100-$150, and a 17" would be $125-$250 (or more depending on how much you care about quality). These are rough numbers taking from a quick peak at prices on computers.com just now.

Zealot · October 20, 2001, 15:16

Nope! I still have a 14" monitor since 1995.

Adm.Naismith · October 21, 2001, 17:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Bleyn
I'm sure they probably did some testing, and the stats represent what they consider minimum adequate performance, but I do find it amusing that what would have been fairly well top of the line when they started development is their minimum now.

That would be quite a smart move: starting the game development with an almost top HW and with a project timeline targetted two years later you know you'll have them as pretty medium game requirement at the end of development.

Then almost every one at your development team left and you have a little shift in timing, but that's another story...

jaw395 · November 4, 2001, 18:30

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
Solver, tell me WHY should Firaxis, or any company work to make their products backwards compatable, when you (or whatever other person that has old equipment) CLEARLY in the minority?

Well, people with monitors that only do 800x600 might not be the minority for long. I own a new HDTV that supports computer inputs. I stopped using my 21" monitor and packed it away. My new monitor (the HDTV) is 52", I would never go back to the 21", but alas, I can't play Civ3 because it only supports upto 800x600 resolution. It's really a shame, I am sure a lot more people will be buying HighDef TV's and will want to use them as computer monitors. I am NOT going back to my 21" just to play Civ3, I guess I'll just never play it. You would think, with a 3d game, they would be able to scale it to any resolution they wanted (like the majority of the games on the market today), but I think they just got lazy.

Quote:

Originally posted by connorkimbro
My parents still have an oooooold 486 mhz computer. Should Firaxis also make the game backwards compatible for them, just to make sure they can play it too? of course not.

For whatever strange reason, one that you won't even talk about, you refuse to buy a new monitor. That's fine. But don't expect Firaxis to listen to you, as MOST people either are fine, or are willing to upgrade to keep up with the times.