homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.211.47.170
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Local / WebmasterWorld Community Center
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: lawman

WebmasterWorld Community Center Forum

    
Survey: What is your color resolution?
Are you running 256?
Brett_Tabke




msg:520561
 11:56 am on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

Anyone here still running 256 colors on a regular basis?

Think it would be safe to assume everyone is running atleast 32k?

 

sugarkane




msg:520562
 3:46 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

Mostly 24 bit here, but my windows test machine is set at 16 bit.

BoneHeadicus




msg:520563
 3:59 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

I always design in 16 bit.

I think it's pretty safe to say 256 is history.

oilman




msg:520564
 4:09 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

running 32 bit here but I try to stay with web safe color pallete in PhotoImpact when I design

Xoc




msg:520565
 4:27 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

256 is not entirely dead. There are still a significant percentage of people, 6%, that are running at 256. Also, realize that many wireless devices have low color resolution.

See [hotwired.lycos.com...] for a good article on web colors.

Of couse, that is the web in general. I would guess that most of the people here have higher color resolution.

Brett_Tabke




msg:520566
 4:32 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

That was kinda what I was wondering Xoc, was if we had anyone routinely on the road checking in with a laptop. I also wondered about some of our office workers stuck in one of those cubicles from the early 90's...

sugarkane




msg:520567
 5:14 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

I've been mulling this kind of issue over for a while. If someone was still viewing the web in 256, they'd come up against so many sites that would look awful that they'd be used to it and wouldn't single out your particular site for using 16 bit.

Case in point: I recently found out that one machine on our network was running 16 colours (yes, 16). My lovely intranet looked a total mess and I was close to a heart attack - but the operator hadn't even realised there was anything wrong...

While I'd never rely on people having the latest and greatest system for functionality issues, I'm undecided as far as cosmetics go...

mivox




msg:520568
 8:03 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

come up against so many sites that would look awful that they'd be used to it and wouldn't single out your particular site for using 16 bit

That's often what I figure... if you're using an incredibly old browser or a 256 color monitor, the vast majority of websites are going to look screwed up in some way. I doubt any specific page will have a grudge held against it for not looking good on a 12 inch/256 color monitor with a machine running Netscape 3.0.

OTOH... if you design your page (or an alternate version w/ browser sniffer) so that it looks *really good* on a set-up like that, you will probably earn the undying gratitude and loyalty of the fractional percentage of surfers visiting your site with 'antique' machines!

Xoc




msg:520569
 8:16 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

I've come to realize that there is a substantial percentage of people using the web that don't have the slightest idea what they are doing. They bought a machine from Gateway or Dell. They got AOL. They use the browser and video that came with it. When it finally seems outdated, they don't upgrade the software, they just buy a whole new machine. They use their brother-in-law's kid to fix the machine when it breaks, or spend three hours on hold with Gateway or Dell. They haven't a clue that they are running 256 colors and wouldn't know how to change it if they could.

BoneHeadicus




msg:520570
 8:46 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

That's precisely right Xoc.

So the question is....how many stock set ups are defaulting to 256 at 640 x480.

I haven't installed a video card lately that defaulted to less than 16 bit.

Certainly no one intentionally sets the color depth to 256?

mivox




msg:520571
 8:51 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

Systems sold within the last year to 18 months? I'd say virtually none...

Xoc




msg:520572
 9:48 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

But what happens when they boot into safe mode, and the driver gets reset? They don't know how to reset it, so just live with it.

mivox




msg:520573
 9:58 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

boot into safe mode, and the driver gets reset?
I'm assuming this is a Windows thing? Why would they boot into "safe mode", and why would that reset their system to 256 colors? Would the default settings for the drivers really be set to such a low resolution?

Xoc




msg:520574
 10:18 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

You can get kicked into safe mode if you reboot the computer while it is trying to boot. It figures that you have an invalid device driver, which is why you couldn't successfully boot, and kind of puts you into a least-common-denominator mode. If you do anything with the video driver in safe mode, it resets itself to 640x480x16 "just to be safe". :)

mivox




msg:520575
 10:26 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

Gotcha... what a headache! In which case the sort of people you are referring to would either call a repairman, or buy a new computer. ;) In either case, they'd soon be back to "normal" monitor settings...

sugarkane




msg:520576
 10:39 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

>the sort of people you are referring to would either call a repairman, or buy a new computer. ;)

A friend of mine who is reasonably savvy got into this situation after a windows reinstall, and is perfectly happy running 640x400 on a 19 inch monitor... I offered to set it to a higher resolution but he really does like it the way it is...

<shrug>

mivox




msg:520577
 11:33 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

perfectly happy running 640x400 on a 19 inch monitor

!!!

Well, one can't base their actions, standards and design style on the behavior of the obviously loopy! ;)

I start feeling claustrophobic with 800x600 on a 17"...

tedster




msg:520578
 11:44 pm on Mar 28, 2001 (gmt 0)

When I'm working in Photoshop, I often switch to 640x480. I've found that I create cleaner graphics that way -- any flaws are much more obvious.

I design in 32-bit color, but check it at 16 bit before I say it's a go. I want to be sure I give the leading edge people something to appreciate if I can.

Unfortunately, changing color depth takes a re-boot, whereas only changing screen resolution does not. Sometimes I begrudge the time it takes for the 2 re-boots, and I skip the double check at 16 bit. BAAAD habit.

ancarett




msg:520579
 3:12 am on Mar 30, 2001 (gmt 0)

Heh, I suppose I shouldn't say that somedays I yearn for the old days of the two colour internet...yup, text only websurfing in LYNX with ascii graphics the highlight of the day? I surf on a variety of machines (I'm spoiled ROTTEN) but prefer a minimum of 16 bit and a minimum resolution of 600x800 for my personal viewing. Of course, you got to test them all, including text only options, if simply for accessibility.

jimmykav




msg:520580
 12:46 pm on Mar 30, 2001 (gmt 0)

1024x768 16bit hicolor here.
A lot of the older machines still run 256 to save on memory and speed

Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Local / WebmasterWorld Community Center
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved