View Full Version : Screen Resolution
For the benefit of the board. What Screen resolution do you run.
There are multiple options so I will only show the most common.
To find out do the following:-
Right click your desktop
click properties
select settings
Resolution will then be displayed
Craig, you might find this useful -
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
thanks Mrfish, kind of bugs me that 14% still supposedly use 800 * 600.
Mr personal web site looks cack in that.
I guess that means that 14% of users will not be able to see the sponsors banners properly then.
And yes they can still click on them even under 800 * 600, they may have to scroll to see the whole image though.
800 * 600 does not stop it working.
simon garratt
09-07-07, 15:58
Agreed.
half the photo images on this board are in 800 x 600. you cant expect web desighners to keep everything set up for a small % of lowest resolution users. which is why most of them go for 1024 as a benchmark..
its up to the lower end users to keep up with the changes, not the other way round imo.
regards
Si.
I build web sites as a hobby for small businesses,
At the time I started, I did a lot of research on pro web development forums, and looking at various pro sites, and came to the conclusion that its impossible to meet all the standards for everyone, for all screen resolutions and Web browsers on different platforms, without a great deal of time and work. In order to do it you have to simplify and make make compromises in design.
Since I get paid very little for the time I put in, I took the decision to only build sites for the majority which at the time was IE and FF on windows running at 800x600 and above (640x400 was still popular at the time), with the view that the web needs to move forwards, not be held back by outdated technology. My clients don't care as they pay me peanuts, if they want to pay 3 times the price then go elsewhere.
Rather blinkered possibly, but they are my rules ;) a decision you need to take with your web site.
and that is the decision I have made..for mine and other web sites I do for small business also.
I just did not realise the supposedly 14% still use 800 * 600, that was 6 months ago mind, probably less than 10% now.
screen res is 1280 x 1024 however
i have this set at
1152 x 864
just find it better for me
regards
rupert
1440 * 900 (iMAC)
I chose option 4
It is width that we mainly interested in, so that's the best response.
mikeadams1985
09-07-07, 21:27
1152 x764
so option 4
MaidstoneMarine
09-07-07, 22:24
1600 x 1200 for me!
The websites I used to work on for my company were all originally designed on the assumption that 800x600 was the minimum spec to use.
However, since the wide availability of LCD screens which have high native resolutions, we decided last year to use 1024x768 (15" LCD) as the minimum spec for public facing sites as our own webstats showed hardly anyone running 800x600 or below, with 1280x1024 for internal sites/apps as everyone had 17" LCD screens.
Although with the difference in price between 15, 17 and 19 inch screens reducing all the time I expect the minimums will be reviewed again in 18 months time.
FYI I am viewing this in 1280x1024 :)
All the best
John
1680x1050 here.... also use a 1280x1024
1920 X 1200 :D
But then it needs to be good for the number of hours I spend in front of the damn thing all day! ;)
I'll be interested in the results as a re-design of our company website is on the cards.
I think this thread has become a bit Freudian :p
Absolutely - do I win? :laugh::laugh:
For work I need a monitor I can fit big bits of airplane on at a decent scale. Taking advantage of it just to look at peoples great tank photos is just a bonus.:)
damianandrew
10-07-07, 14:32
mine is 1280 by 800 and thats my laptop
Absolutely - do I win? :laugh::laugh:
So far, but I suspect the sub concious connection with you is what you desire, not what you have ;)
...I suspect the sub concious connection with you is what you desire, not what you have ;)
An even bigger monitor? :p
1920 X 1200 :D
damn!:laugh:
Hmm, wide screen. Two concurrent editor sessions running side by side, a programmers idea of luxury!
Sad, init! :laugh:
lol. I couldn't possibly manage without 2 monitors each 1920 x 1200. Sometimes I wish I had a third one.
Very Sad! :laugh:
Now that's just silly!
There'd be no room for the nano tank on my desk if I got another monitor. :D
Nah, can't do that, I'm up against a wall one side and the main reef is on the other.
Suppose I could fire someone and move the tank along a bit, but I had the roof vents built into the office so they were above the tank lights.
If I have to take the roof back off the building to move those along too people are going to start getting a bit upset!
Reef bloke
10-07-07, 18:29
Im being a bit dim here as per usual but if the site was re designed for 800 by 600 would it start to look odd and awkward for the majority enjoying higher res?
If so would it put a higher percentage of peeps off using the site thus being counter productive?
just gone back to using 2 monitors and got to say its chuffing brilliant.
Both stuck at 1280 * 1024 though. but its nice to bring one down to 1024 * 768 if I want to test one of my sites.
Wouldn't be without my second monitor at work, 1680*1020 or somat like that on the laptop (dell widescreen thingy) and a 1280*1024 external LCD. Target application running on the external while running Visual Studio on the laptop. Much much better than the old days (gdb and vi!).
Then I come home and I have a single 1024*768 laptop screen. Feel very inadequate.
Im being a bit dim here as per usual but if the site was re designed for 800 by 600 would it start to look odd and awkward for the majority enjoying higher res?
If so would it put a higher percentage of peeps off using the site thus being counter productive?
Depends on the design. If dimensions are fixed (in pixels, ems whatever) then the site will look odd at higher resolutions as there will be a lot os screen real-estate left empty. However if the design is fluid (which the current site appears to be) then it will just expand to fill up the available real-estate.
If it is designed for a higher res, then those on 800x600 will either be doing a lot of sideways scrolling if it is fixed, or it will look a bit squashed along with not so much sideways scrolling if fluid.
John
fireproofcujo
24-07-07, 03:32
1680x1050 viewed on 22" widescreen lcd would get a 30" widescreen if i could afford it. scrolling from side to side to see pictures on forums is pants if you ask me :p
I personally use 1280*1024
When designing websites, I usually have them so they work in 1024*768 and upscale to other resolutions
hi
after looking at this poll i have changed mine from 800 by 600 to 1024 by 768 it has made the writing very small and if i change it to a higher one it even smaller i wouldnt be able to read it. so from a point of reading i prefer 800 by 600...... can someone explain any other differences?
thanks nog
Sony tft running at 1920x1200
fireproofcujo
22-08-07, 06:01
i think a more usefull poll would be type of monitor and screensize as the bigger monitors have a larger native res anyway no one on a 20" monitor is gonna view in 640 x 480 are they :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
ORCA TL-450 newbie
20-10-07, 21:20
i like 1440x...... can't remember
Can i change mine, now got a 22 inch widescreen monitor and run 1280 x 1024 :thumbsup:
Replaced my old CRT with a 20"; 1680x1050.
Jeff.
I think 1024*768 is good.
The display resolution of a digital television or computer display typically refers to the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed. It can be an ambiguous term especially as the displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in cathode ray tube (CRT) and flat panel or projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel) arrays.One use of the term "display resolution" applies to fixed-pixel-array displays such as plasma display panels (PDPs), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), digital light processing (DLP) projectors, or similar technologies, and is simply the physical number of columns and rows of pixels creating the display (e.g., 800×600 or 1024×768). A consequence of having a fixed grid display is that for multiformat video inputs all displays need a "scaling-engine" (a digital video processor that includes a memory array) to match the incoming picture format to the display.
I think 1024*768 is good.
The display resolution of a digital television or computer display typically refers to the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed. It can be an ambiguous term especially as the displayed resolution is controlled by different factors in cathode ray tube (CRT) and flat panel or projection displays using fixed picture-element (pixel) arrays.One use of the term "display resolution" applies to fixed-pixel-array displays such as plasma display panels (PDPs), liquid crystal displays (LCDs), digital light processing (DLP) projectors, or similar technologies, and is simply the physical number of columns and rows of pixels creating the display (e.g., 800×600 or 1024×768). A consequence of having a fixed grid display is that for multiformat video inputs all displays need a "scaling-engine" (a digital video processor that includes a memory array) to match the incoming picture format to the display.
errr, thankyou for the block copy of the text off wikipedia. can i ask why tho?
errr, thankyou for the block copy of the text off wikipedia. can i ask why tho?
Aw Scoob, you're such an old cynic! :laugh:
My 2p's worth... :o
Common UK web stats suggest that the majority of web users browse at a resolution of 1024 x 768 and above (this is an average across all sites, and may differ on individual sites). They also suggest that most users don't know how to, or wish to, change the default resolution set by the manufacturer. This default resolution increases as technology and screen definitions improves, and so the number of users operating at higher resolutions increases with time.
However, it is worth remembering that many web users browse the web at work, where technology may not be so up-to-date - many corporates still operate on 15" monitors with lower resolutions such as 800 x 600; higher resolutions than this on a small display risk rendering text unreadable.
As already suggested, some users may not have the luxury of 20:20 vision, and as a result may work at a lower resolution. Good web standards suggest optimising your site for the majority of users, whilst still making it usable for those on the lowest common denominator or oldest technology. Your web stats should be able to indicate the most common resolution of your site's visitors - a poll may not reflect this accurately, and the stats will vary from site to site. If your (or any members here with their own sites) web host doesn't provide decent stats, try using http://www.google.com/analytics/ - it's free, and for the money(!) probably the best available. You'll be able to extract loads of useful data (screen res, operating system, user location, paths through your site etc. etc.) ;)
I'd suggest leaving the UR site at a variable width - my monitor resolution at work is different to at home, but the UR site appears fine on both. :worship:
Unless users are having issues, why risk changing it?
2048 * 1536 .. HD and a bit more! :)
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2012, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.