Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 188.8.131.52
Forum Moderators: incrediBILL
The best way to go is to design a site that will look good on both resolutions.
[edited by: Sinner_G at 9:19 am (utc) on Aug. 9, 2002]
Display Statistics - Screen Resolution
1024x768 or more 44%
Other or Unknown 3%
If you are not going for a liquid page design then it looks like 800x600 still needs to be what you aim for...
I think that's where a majority of that % comes from.
I sometimes take for granted where I live, I'm guessing that in some less privileged coutries, or areas, computers will be relatively expensive (less disposable income) so they ain't going to be running the new top of the range PC.
I know my college bought new PC's in '99. They are horribly out of date
Here are a few others:
The Counter [thecounter.com] July 2002 Stats:
800x600 - 49%
1024x768 - 37%
1280x1024 - 4%
640x480 - 3%
1152x864 - 3%
Unknown - 1%
1600x1200 - 0%
Stats from Echo Echo [echoecho.com]:
800x600 - 52%
1024x768 - 34%
640x480 - 03%
1280x1024 - 03%
1152x864 - 03%
1600x1200 - <1%
These are general stats, based on a number of sites.
So, it seems that 800x600 is still very prolific and can't yet be ignored... As an aside, I'd much rather see NS4.x go away completely before 800x600 leaving us. It's much easier to cater for screen resolution than it is to make sure your lovely, validating code renders ok in NS4.x! :)
1024 x 768 61.9%
800 x 600 18.1%
1280 x 1024 10.4 %
1152 x 864 6.4 %
1600 x 1200 1.4%
640 x 480 0.3%
AFAIK Switzerland, the Netherlands and scandinavian countries are even higher for high resolutions. Seems continental Europeans renew their hardware more often ;).
Perhaps American desks are bigger than European ones, so people sit further away from their monitors?
I have my display set at 1024x768, but my browser is always at 800 pixel width, because is more confortable and then I can get more windows to work with around.
Just a personal commentary, of course doesn't reflect the world's views.
If you are building a fixed width site, I have heard that 760 pixles wide is standard. For a liquid design, I find that it is quite easy to build sites that look great at 800 odd pixles wide, and that still work ok at 500 pixles and 1000 pixles.
I would never recomend building a fixed width site at 1000 pixles, it will be annoying to about 70% or more of your visitors.
it seems a complete waste to use a windows style GUI and then run everything full screen...might as well save on memory and run in DOS
I like like this :)
I use to have my browser, an editor, a console for compiling and running and maybe a music player, all these on the same workspace. I won't go on with my other two workspaces. Granted, this is Linux and the window manager behavior lets me to do sloppy mouse selection.
Anyway, my point is that 800x600 is readable enough for me, and wouldn't care if the status quo remained at that size.
Yes... it's very common to have the MS Office toolbar docked on the right hand side of the screen. Very annoying to have to scroll horizontally.
I once saw a roughly 800 pixel-wide site floating in the middle of a larger browser window, which looked great, and I've always wondered how they did it. It was on someone else's system and I never got the URL so I could check the code. I have an 800x600 screen, so on my own display I wouldn't notice that this had been done. Anyone have any ideas?
People have the Windows fonts set at different sizes and also set the browser to display at different font sizes. They may also have various toolbars installed etc.
The combinations can cause havoc if you are trying to position elements with any degree of precision.
Even if you set the font size using pixels, it is not going to work for every case.
I now try do everyting with CSS and position things with flexible layouts, (I can't wait till Netscape 4.* is dead).