Well first of all, nobody voted 192x168, because there is no 192x168 option in the poll. Also, what this resolution in particular have to do with TI compatibility? No TI-BASIC compatibility is even planned in the first place. All that matters is having a not expensive screen, easy on the processor for the platform but large enough to allow more text at once while still keeping it easy to read.

Also, remember the larger the screen, the longer it takes to update.

94x64 = 6144 pixels
192x128 = 24576
240x160 = 38400 (about 1.5x slower than the previous res.)
320x240 = 76800 (now you know why Nspire raycaster isn't much more faster than it is despite running at 150 MHz)

That said, I voted for 240x160, because it seems more like a generic resolution, while not being overly large.

I think you are jumping on people who voted otherwise here just because they have a different opinion than you. If you didn't want people to vote that, then why did you kept the option included in the poll in the first place? Sorry, but while you improved a lot since the TIBD/UTI incidents in 2009, unlike a few others, on the point of respecting other people opinions and not imposing yours on them you still have a long way to go. Sorry for being rude but I don't tolerate posts like the above on the forums. At least Matthias1992 stopped doing those.

Ah ok. As for mods that might become handy in the future. I would like to at least set permissions for specific project authors so they can sticky/unsticky/unlock/edit polls so it is easier for non-staff to manage (as well as giving less work on actual staff)

It depends. last time I tried doing that it seemed to mess some other things up. However, I was still not that experienced in SMF. It may just take quite a bit before I  do it, since I work all weekend and don't do much forum management stuff on work days.

I was looking around, and I discovered 240x160 lcds are equally hard to come by.
We should hold a revote, but actually confirm that the resolutions are available before voting.