screen resolution

[XxSweetFacadexX]

this is a dumb and easy question.. but i need to know everyone's answer...

what is your screen resolution?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

1024x768 32bit

:asian:

 

[Michael Billings]

1280 X 1024 on my laptop docking station at work

1024 X 768 on my desktop at home & on the one I have at my school.

 

[Michael Billings]

So you may want to combine these two threads, but:

Michael Billings orig posted in Computer Support:

Why

1280 X 1024 on my laptop docking station at work

1024 X 768 on my desktop at home & on the one I have at my school.

 

[Cryozombie]

1024x768

 

[jfarnsworth]

I use 800x600

At work we have 1024x768. To tell you the truth I would love to have a much bigger monitor at work.

 

[Cthulhu]

1024 X 768

Capable of much higher, but I don't feel like using a magnifying glass to read and see my icons.

Cthulhu

 

[XxSweetFacadexX]

Originally posted by jfarnsworth
I use 800x600

At work we have 1024x768. To tell you the truth I would love to have a much bigger monitor at work.

lol. poke your boss for one of those 27" flat-panel, lcd monitors... ohhh.. just a thought.

 

[tarabos]

1280 x 1024 75Hz

 

[satans.barber]

1152x864

 

[jfarnsworth]

Originally posted by XxSweetFacadexX
lol. poke your boss for one of those 27" flat-panel, lcd monitors... ohhh.. just a thought.

That would be cool but for some reason I think I already know what the answer is. :rofl:

 

[Mickey]

1152 x 864 on a dual monitor system.

One 19" and One 17"


Web Design?

 

[satans.barber]

Web Design?

If we're talking about web design, a page needs to work in 800x600 and up really, here's the latest resolution stats (a little more comprehensive than a thread on MT... )

544x372 (MSN-TV [WebTV] / NTSC): this is the MSN-TV resolution. There are about a million MSN-TV users, but there are no good stats available about how many pages they access: it does seem likely that MSN-TV appliances account for under 1% of page accesses. This should change little in the short term, as the number of MSN-TV users has changed little for several years: changes in the long term depend on how avidly consumers embrace such appliances, and on how well MSN-TV competes with similar iTV products. [R1,R2]

640x480 (VGA): this accounts for ~2% of page accesses, down from 4% a year ago. Most users likely have old PCs. The percentage will continue to drop, slowly, as older PCs are retired, but will remain significant for several years. [R3,R4]

800x600 (XGA): this accounts for ~45% of page accesses, down from 51% a year ago. Some users surely have old PCs, with little video memory; the rest likely have PCs whose resolutions are set lower because (a) many new PCs default to a lower resolution, and (b) many PCs have monitors too small for readable higher-resolution text. The percentage will likely decrease steadily as higher resolution displays grow more common, but will remain popular for many years. [R3,R4]

1024x768 and higher (SVGA): this accounts for ~51% of page accesses, up from 43% a year ago. Most new PCs have enough video memory for high resolution displays, but many are set to a lower resolution because (a) many new PCs default to a lower resolution, and (b) many PCs have monitors too small for readable higher-resolution text. The percentage of high resolution users will continue to grow steadily. [R3,R4]

Other: other resolutions are found among net appliances and some PCs. For example, the Sony eVilla had a portrait-mode display, with the height greater than the width. Right now such appliances account for relatively few page accesses: this will surely change, but how - and by how much - will depend on the vagaries of the market.

As you can see, it's pretty much a 50/50 split between 800x600 and 1024x768, so you need to use designs which look OK at both these resolutions

One popular method seems to be having a static 800px table or div, and just filling that, but at 1024x or higher this wastes vast amounts of the screen, so I'm personally for percentages instead. As long as you don't have images which are too big, sensible browsers should squish text up so that it looks fine at lower resolutions.

I recently re-designed my own site and found a particular image that I couldn't really re-size, because it forms a complex image map, so I used CSS to make the p scroll instead of the browser like this:

<p align="center" style="overflow: scroll">

Which looks neater I think (from http://www.satansbarber.co.uk/garforth/mapmain.htm).

Something else that will serve you well is using <hr> tags instead of long, thin images for breaks in pages, since these will often make pages far too wide at lower resolutions.

If people are reading this thread and aren't sure what resolution they are actually using, right click on your desktop, then click on 'properties' and then the 'settings' tab on the far right - there should be a little slider with 'screen resolution' above it. Generally, on a 15" monitor you should be using 800x600, unless it's very high quality in which case you might get away with 1024x768 or higher. Don't use this resolution on a cheap-mid range 15" monitor as text will appear blurry, which will give you eye strain. On at 17" monitor, 1024x768 or 1152x864 are the common 4:3 resolutions. At 19" or higher, it really depends on teh quality of the monitor, but the resolution can be pushed much higher.

That's talking about CRT monitors of course, TFT (flat panel) monitors should always be set at their native resolution, which will be specidfied in the manual. As a rule of thumb though, a TFT can display a higher resolution than a similarly (quoted) sized CRT, e.g. a 15" TFT usually has a 1024x768 native resolution.

HTH,

Ian.

 

[XxSweetFacadexX]

yeah, Mickey, you guessed it!

reaction to satans.barber's post... damn it damn it damn it.

i'm not a fan of the 800x600 res. 1024x768 up i like. i'm running at 1400x1015...

reason why i asked is because i was hoping to get away with a layout made for 1024x768... i created a layout in photoshop and forgot to shrink it... only realizing this after i already spliced everything.

but since i don't enjoy websites that don't perfectly fit on a screen, i'll just make 2 layouts for two different resolutions... spooooo...

i've experimented with the <hr> tags when i first started web design.. i've decided that in the type of web designs that i'll do, they aren't useful to me or just don't compliment anything. i don't need the breaks in the webpage anyway... not for the way i do it at least.

thanks for the info everyone!

 

[satans.barber]

Hmm, thought so! The cynic in me says 'Just go buy a 17" monitor, they're cheap now!" but the realist/computer scientist i me knows that 800x600 still has ~50% of the market, so designing sites that don't work at this res. is in-excusable really....

Ian.

 

[arnisador]

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-