Screen Resolutions

800x600 or 1024x768 in the last year there have been some moves

[zeus]

I can see now that more and more use 1024x768 resolution in my logs it looks like 46,40% for 1024x768 and 40,16% 800x600.

I could not believe it should take so long to get people to use 1024x768 resolutions, but for the last year it has moved 5% to 1024x768 resolutions favor. I got about 600.000 unique visits a month, so it is a little statistic in this.

zeus

[dragonlady7]

It had never even occurred to me that you could find that sort of thing in your logs.
...
Wow. I need to get me a program that does that.

From my own experience, I've almost always used a fairly large resolution, but most of my co-workers and relatives are still at 800x600. I find it amazing, but I guess that's just how most people see their computers to this day.

Fascinating.

[zeus]

dragonlady, there is alot of tools where you can see those log files free and paid for. I personally use both.

zeus

[dragonlady7]

I checked out a couple of free ones and have one I've been using a little while, but I'm starting to get an inkling that I could try out a few more.
:-D
Learning new things every day!

[choster]

I think people replace their displays less frequently than some of their other hardware. In particular, businesses might feel compelled to keep up with software packages, and thus need to upgrade continuously the machines which run that software; pretty displays, however, seem almost a luxury item beyond the desks of executives and the luckier graphic designers.

Color depth may be even slower to improve, and improvements in sound are going to be even further down the list.

The dramatic decrease in prices for LCD displays, which is also dragging down CRT prices, may finally be enticing businesses to upgrade. On the other hand, people might not even realize their screen supports a higher resolution, or know how to change it, and others (e.g. older users) might prefer the lower resolution so that the size is larger.

[richardb]

I think that you will find that TFT’s have pushed down the price of standard monitors so that the market is now flooded with large monitors, e.g. anyone can buy a good second hand 22” monitor for about £100

I was at Bowlers (Manchester comp fair) recently and one stand was actually giving away 14” and 15” monitors.

Rich

[broniusm]

true, and I think it has to do with the overall marketing of complete packages whose base resolution is 1024x768 having made it mainstream-- I'm sure a lot of us were around when the only ones with PCs were tinkerers, and the only way to get a smashing deal was to roll your own at home. Now, it's like buying textbooks and kitchenware.

[choster]

Still, the only site where I track screen resolution has a relatively technology-forward audience-- university students, who often buy a new computer when they begin classes (as opposed to faculty or researchers, who are often stuck behind the curve)-- our numbers are similar to those zeus posted, a hair over 38% YTD still on 800x600 and about 55% at 1024x768 or higher. Less than 1% 640x480, which is lower than our Netscape 4 userbase.

[broniusm]

interesting, choster: you're probably also having to deal with campus-fulls of computer labs. Where I went to school, we were pretty cutting-edge. Some schools, however, hang on to their ancient boxes as long a possible with tapping the budget.
I bring this up, because with 5-6 computer labs with 40 computers apiece, this can make a difference in student-related websites.

[rcjordan]

Period covered: last 26 months
uniques: 32k
type of site: real estate

800x600 - 61.45%

1024x768 - 28.55%

640x480 - 4.74%

1280x1024 - 1.82%

Other - 1.72%

1152x864 - 1.43%

1600x1200 - 0.25%

[mivox]

I've met more than a few Windows users who had no idea they could change their screen resolution, default font size, etc., etc.

So they were muddling along with 800x600 on 17" monitors, 256 colors in some cases, and HUGE screen fonts, thinking that's just the way the world looked. (until I came along and enlightened them, hehe) ;)

[mole]

presumably the limiting factor will ultimately be people's eyesight.
In the past it was difficult to get graphics cards and/or screens which could do umpteen zillion colours at high resolution and a fast refresh (flicker free).

Now that it's easy and cheap for the hardware to do pretty much what you want, then it comes down to what you actually want to look at.
personally I wouldn't want anything more than 1024x768 on a 14" screen.

[RoadRash]

I work in the tech support arena, Just last week I had a lady using 640 x 480 @ 256 on a 19" monitor! Why this setting? Thats what her OLD computer was set to...

I personaly run 2560 x 1024 :)

[mole]

RoadRash, do you run any applications maximised at that res. or do you have lots of windows open, tiled?

[RoadRash]

I run two 19" monitors, I have Outlook maximized on the right monitor at all times. Depending what I use, I have photoshop maximized on the left monitor, and photoshop tools on the right. Cute FTP maximized on the left and Cute HTML maximized on the right. Everything else is in smaller windows, about 1000 x 700 in size...

[kingkelly]

I stick to 800x600 for my 17" just because i dont want alienate anyone when i make webpages. nothing looks worse to me when i see a page that needs to be scrolled horizontally.

[Go60Guy]

I design in 1024 x 768, but make darn sure it all works in 800 x 600.

[eggy ricardo]

Hi Guys

I agree with KingKelly about scrolling horizontally, especially if its just for the last word (for example) on every line.

Then i have the big debate with myself about what res to design my site for. I mostly just end up with it designed for 800x600 so 1024x768 can still view it OK or just trying to make it work on both, like Go60Guy.

I have to admit though that I never realised how many people used 1024x768 as opposed to 800x600 - interesting figures.

Good Post!
eggy_ricardo

PS A school I used to go to are STILL using an Acorn Archimedes based network for about 60 computers and have only recently started using Windows, running on the old banger computers with RISC OS lingering behind it somewhere.

[kingkelly]

T'is good (if youre going to make sites for 1024x768) if you make that srollable part on the right of the page a long skyscraper ad, oppose to more content. That way people having to scroll will just an add, and wont miss any content.

[hakre]

i favor the 800x600 rule, even if the user has a higher resolution, do you surf with a maximized browser all the time?

and for now, i think svg will lead to more dynamic-sizeable websites for multiple resolutions: the bigger the screen, the bigger the website or oldskool-pixel-accurate.

- hakre.

[kingkelly]

just wondering, what resolution do those 15 inch LCD monitors run usually? because a lot of dell packages now are coming with the LCD monitors, and make them 15" instead of 17".

[XtendScott]

KingKelly,

Most 15" LCD screens are 1024x768 at optimal resolution, but would not be surprised if people knock it down to 800x600 for eye sight problems.

Scott

[ericf451]

Personally I design a lot of pages with "key spots" that have the width and height based on percentages instead of actual pixel measurements. That way depending on the resolution, the layout "adjusts" for the most part. Its not perfect but for most basic layouts its a nice touch.

I'm sure you web gurus know this but just some tips for the newbies kinda like me! This is a superb forum .. i'm happy to have joined. I need all the help i can get with my site! I'm dying lately on this project.

[mat_bastian]

I hope people continue to design for 800X600.

I have a 19 inch monitor that I run at 1600X1200 so that I can have two 800X600 windows open side by side.

Great for designing, coding, surfing, etc...

[Go60Guy]

ericf451, welcome to WebmasterWorld. FYI, its called a liquid layout or a fluid layout by some. I've switched to designing this way.

[menton]

hi everybody,

I use a notebook with a 15" monitor at 1600 x 1200 for the same reason as mat_bastian, 2 800 x 600 windows side by side. On this resolution there is so much room to work with.

menton

[krieves]

When we started our company website 3 years ago, it was designed for 800x600 - the majority of visitors. Since that time I've watched 1024x768 slowly creep up in popularity. Now it's about even at 43% at each, with the remaining 14% and other various resolutions. 2% are still at 640x480. :)

Now I'm designing at 1024x768 when I add or change pages, but still test to see if the appearance is acceptable at 800x600. I see the trend towards higher resolutions to continue as larger monitors decrease in price. Afterall, why replace 15in. monitor with another 15 when you can afford a 17-19inch model?

[dragonlady7]

>two 800X600 windows open side by side.

>Great for designing, coding, surfing

I do that too. My screen's not so big, but I tend to always have my windows smaller than full-screen, and since I have about 80 programs open at once with 2 windows each (exaggeration)...
It's just great. i use fluid designs for my webdesigning-- generally fixed-width graphical elements at the sides, and then the middle sizes by percentage. At least one element of every horizontal cross-section of the site will be resizeable. I try to have it resizeable down to about 650 pixels, though I can't always get under 700. So it looks *best* when it's around 800, but it's not noticeably bad at any larger or smaller size. The only things I ever full-screen are Photoshop and Dreamweaver, and they're collections of little windows anyway.

I just got myself a 17" iMac and I love the wide-resolution screen. I can have more programs open side by side that way; I don't use all the vertical space on my normal old monitor as effectively. Having more horizontal space is a real bonus, especially if you like to use iChat.
It'll be even better once OS 10.3 comes out, with its window-management stuff. ^.^