Monitor Resolutions - personal preferences

[sidyadav]

I've had 800x600 for about 2 years, since I got my computer. Just went over to friends house and saw that he had 1024x768, so had a surf around the web with it, and I've gotta say, even though its big, its crap!

I mean, I've been using 800x600 since years, but never had a visual problem with it, it all just fits, and when I try 1024x768, theres just too much blank space in some web pages, and it just doesn't look "right".

Is it that I'm just used 800x600 or do you all agree, that using 1024x768 just doesn't look right?

[D_Blackwell]

When 1024 started to gain traction, I thought "Oh, I don't need that.". I tested in it for awhile, eventually saw that the future was inevitable, and switched. Now I can't hardly stand 800. It makes my eyes bug out just to look at it for testing.

Not "crap", but a big step up in quality. 800 will soon go the way of 640. What percentage of computers are shipping set at 1024 now?

Didn't take me long to get used to it, and I'll never go back. Older non-fluid sites don't take it so well, but they are obsolete. Soon they will die.

[tedster]

This page right here looks just fine to me at 1024. But I agree that some sites don't make much of an effort to look good at both 800 and 1024, and taken together that amounts to 85% or more of the visitors I see, pretty evenly split between the two.

I love the extra real estate at 1024 - running two different application windows side by side is a big plus and something that I found quite problematic at 800x600

[bill]

When I have a good monitor I usually set it to 1600x1200. That gives me enough real-estate to work with a few windows open. At work I surf with 2560x1024 because I've got 2 monitors (and that's the best my video card will support).

800x600...I can't remember the last time I've used a resolution that small. How can you get any work done ;)

[sidyadav]

800x600...I can't remember the last time I've used a resolution that small. How can you get any work done ;)

donno, I mean, I'm just used to it, and most people who live in the history will say the same.

If anyone offers me a free 1024 monitor, I'll take it, but I won't use it :)

Sid

[D_Blackwell]

----If anyone offers me a free 1024 monitor, I'll take it, but I won't use it :)----

The roar of the dinosaur:))

[choster]

I run at 1600x1200. But I size my browser windows to between, oh, 700 and 1000 wide, so that I can browse multiple sets of sites simultaneously. As you might expect, when a browser window I have deliberately set to fill 1/3 of the screen resizes itself, I am exceptionally annoyed. In particular, sites that maximize themselves even though they are obviously designed for a 1280 or a 1024 screen.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

1280x1024 here. The higher the better, since I hate scrolling.

[eWhisper]

Older non-fluid sites don't take it so well, but they are obsolete. Soon they will die

I still see a lot of these sites being built, and a lot of sites look terrible on my 1024. I wonder the diference of people testing their site in browsers vs screen sizes.

[mattglet]

i'm with ZB on this one.... i hate scrolling. i like to see all my info in one place, and not have to scroll up and down the page 100 times.

As long as your eyesight is fine, once you go to 1024 for an extended amount of time, you'll never go back.

-Matt

[TGecho]

I used 1024 back when I had a 14in monitor. I finally saved up for a nice 19in a couple months ago, and now I'm at 1280x960. 1024 is bearable, 800 is irritating.

[mat]

1152*864 on 19 inch. 16*12 is a bit much for me, 1024 not quite enough. 800 makes my eyes boggle.

We design for 1024 as the median, but all has to fit in at 8*6 without horizontal scrolling.

[asquithea]

I use the highest resolution practical -- maximising both readability and text-on-screen are my goals.

For my home 15" CRT that means 1152x864. 1024x768 is usable, but unnecessarily restrictive in terms of viewable area, whilst 1280x720 is too small to read comfortably.

At work, my 15" LCD is set to 1024x768 (its highest native resolution), my 15" CRT to 1152x864, and my 17" LCD (when I get it back) will probably be set to 1280x720 -- optimised for coding.

With respect to web browsing, I think 1024x768 is probably optimal, but I'm quite prepared to suffer a little site silliness to get more useful screen area at other times.

800x600? Unless you have a visual impairment, an old LCD monitor, or a sub-13" screen (can you even get such a thing nowadays?) you're not making the best use of your screen area. Fonts and window widgets can be tweaked to achieve perfect settings for you without using such a wastefully low resolution.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

BTW - for high resolutions on TFT monitors I can recommend Microsoft's ClearType: [microsoft.com...]

[RammsteinNicCage]

I challenged one of my friends to use 1024x768 for one week without changing back to 800x600 however much he wanted to. It was weird and hard at first, but now he regularly uses 1024x768.

Jennifer

[vkaryl]

Either 1280 x 1024 for general surfing, or 1600 x 1200 when I'm writing in WordPerfect. LOVE the real estate! 17" flat panel, wantwantwant 21" but I'd really rather retire again first.... tired of working. Speaking of which, at work I have a 15" fairly new monitor, but the vid card is crap so I get 1024 x 768 and feel deprived, not to mention cramped.

The bigger the better, as long as the vid res keeps up. And yeah, my seriously aging eyes sometimes see text on the web that's too small to be really readable, which is hardly the fault of the screen and vid card, right? A case in point for design imperatives, I'd say.

[PatrickDeese]

1280x1024 w/a 17" monitor.

[balinor]

Wow, very interesting read. Personally, I don't know how I ever dealt with 800x600...it is like reading a book with large print...just doesn't look right to me. On top of that, editing an image in Photoshop is horrible at 800x600...you spend all of your time scrolling! :)

[D_Blackwell]

This thread has prompted me to revisit my own preferences and practices. I've moved from 1024 to 1280 x 1024. The first day or so was a bit odd, but I'm hooked now. It's so much easier to manage multiple windows. Looks like this will be about max for me, because above that the font sizes become too much of a problem to deal with.

[sidyadav]

I agree, I do have to scroll in everything I do, but hey, whats a mouse for? ;)

Sid

[Reflection]

running two different application windows side by side is a big plus

This is one thing I have never figured out, why do people like doing this? I much prefer to have my apps maximized and use alt-tab to move betweeen them, afterall I can only read one thing at a time ;).

[DrDoc]

How about 1600×1200 on two 20" flat screens?
Leaves enough room to keep sidebars open, plus I can run the editor on one screen, preview in a browser on the other. Or, compare two browsers side by side (or four in one window if I resize them to 800×600).

It was hard to get used to at first, but now I love it!

[ken_b]

hmmmmm..... I'm working quite happily at 800x600 on a 17" monitor.

Some larger images require swithching to 1024, but not many and I switch back as soon as possible.

1024 would probably be fine for me on a 19" screen. But I don't want to upgrade without going to a 21", and so far I'm too cheap to spend the money.

OK, I'm a throwback. But I also design for a user resolution of 800x600 because a large part of my target audience is older and may not have the best eyesite around.

[DrDoc]

But I also design for a user resolution of 800x600

Doesn't everyone? Well, I guess the keyword is "fluid" here, but still... 800×600 is the lowest denominator...

[smokeyb]

In the original post "sidyadav" asks about personal preferences, and then goes on to talk about surfing. I personally don't give a toss what resolution I surf the web at, as I can only read one word and push one button at a time. It's really all about your computer. I work with an abundance of software like Photoshop and Video/DVD editing stuff, and believe me, you can never have enough screen space. I use 1024x768 only because that's all my monitor supports, but with the Video, I link my laptop up as a second monitor... so in theory I could use 2048x768! and I still want more! If you only use your computer for the Net then it doesn't really matter, but if you want to do more? get used to smaller objects and more work area.

[oilman]

1280x1024 on dual 19" LCDs - love the extra real estate - won't ever go back to a single monitor. When I go home and work in the home office with just a single monitor it drives me crazy.

[krieves]

1024 here. I currently design for resolutions of 800x600 and up (fluid design). However, we are talking about redesigning our website and I notice that a lot of other financial sites (banks/mortgage companies) use a fixed design of 770 or so. Some center justify, others left justify. I suppose this is done to provide a consistent look regardless of resolution. Since text doesn't wrap, most all design elements stay in place. However, at resolutions above 800x600, you get white areas either on the right side or on each side.

[mep00]

I receintly briefly switch back to 800x600. I found in Firebird half my screen was taken up by toolbars (Opera was almost as bad; didn't realize I had that many). With IE it as more than half the screen, but then again, these days toolbars and testing are the only reasons I use IE. Couldn't stand it; I had to switch back to 1024x768.

[HarryM]

I used to use 800x600 on a 15 inch monitor, but a couple of years ago bought a 17 inch and have been running at 1024 x 768 ever since. The only time I go below or above that is for testing how pages will look.

As others have pointed out, I can't imagine using Photoshop or most other software in 800x600. But another point against it is that many sites are now designed to be reader-friendly at 1024 which makes any fixed fonts look big and clunky at 800.

Harry

[Chicken Juggler]

We design for 800x600. After reading this I switched to 1280X1024. I am legaly blind so it looks a little weird to me. I may have to switch back to 1024x768.