Printable View
Reading some mags about web pages and most say that web pages should be no more than 600 pixels wide so people with 800 x 600 resolution can view the page without having to scroll all the time. What do you think, should web pages be held back by people with only 800 x 600 resolution or should we say b*****ks and build them for people with larger resolutions?
Or do you have 800 x 600 and think web pages should be sized to suit you?
Who cares about webpages...I like my desktop at 800x600. Anything above that makes the text and icons too small, and makes it feel like there is too much open space. But anything below that makes it feel like the text and icons are too big. 800x600 is perfect.
Hi!
I usually use a 19" monitor at 1408x1056 resolution with 24+8 bit color depth. Still, I think that well-designed web-pages should be easily viewable for the large number of people that are still working with computers with a 14/15" monitor at 800x600/16. Maybe in a year or so this genarally accepted minimum will shift to 1024x786. I think we should derive this minimum from mainstream computers sold about four to five years ago. Computer enthusiasts will buy a new computer within tree years, but the life cycle of a computer is longer for most other people. For now, definitely 800x600.
alex
I once made a poll like this :(
I use 1280x1024, but I'm not voting anyway...
Oskilian
speaking of which... i remember when i was designing my graphics setup that i wanted the functions to be mode portable... so, with web stuff, can this be done as well? i would hope so, but a lot of what i hear is the opposite...
-doubleanti... a non-web kinda person...
I use 1024 x 768 on my notebook and 1280 x 1024 on my PC. I think that optimizing for one size is stupid anyway. It's WINDOWS for gods sake. I can't stand these people running one app fullscreen all time. I have 5 windows open just as I write this, and only one is maximized in the background. I would hate a website I would have to view fullscreen to avoid scrolling.
I use percentages in my websites so that you can view it with any resolution.
I prefer not writing to 640X480 but my site should be viewable at that with a little cross dragging. (just due to embeded flash, etc... the text molds to the screen whatever you use)
I personally use 1024 X 768 or greater.
I use either 1280x 1024 or 1024x 768, depending on what I am doing.
I use 1152x864, 24 in KDE and I currently have 8 virtual desktops.
Windows 2000 is too unstable and limited, but I use it sometimes when I'm programming in DX and Win32, or when running my cracked software, like CoolEdit, 3DSM, and other programs not available for Linux. I usually have 1152x864, with a color depth of 16 in Windows.
You left out 1600x1200, so I just voted for the highest.
i got 800 * 600 on this computer, but the family one's got 1280 * 1024. but i think frames shoulb be done in %, and pics not that big
800 X 600
I got addicted to this one ... i haven't tried out any other resolution so far ...
cheers,
I use 800x600 but it has nothing do to with hardware limitations or anything. Anything smaller than 800x600 is to chunky and anything larger is too small. I agree that no app should have to run full screen inside of the Windows environment - except for DirectX games. No web page should require you to view it fullscreen.
1024x768...
...I recall voting this before on another poll but here it is again for your enjoyment. :D :p
-Pendragon
1024x768 all the way... :dejavu:
Right now it's 800x600...
I like this one best, cause it seems just right... for now. I think right now webpages should include 800x600 for the visitors, because there's a lot of people out there using it...
BTW, what's 848 x 480 look like? - never seen that one... whouldn't it be kinda stretched?
Why does everyone use such low res? What size monitors and video cards do you guys have?
I have a GeForce2 MX 400, and a 17" monitor. I am running 1280 by 1024 though. :D
1024x768 on a GeForce2MX 17inch and the same on my other comp at my dads house with a 19inch and ATI Rage Pro Turbo
for the develpers, JAVASCRIPT:resizeTo(800,600) resizes the desktop. or it could be resize-To(), cause i never used it, an it just goes to the next line after resize in the magasine where i got this from.
A good programmer should take care of *anything*, e.g. checking for current screen resolution and adapting the programs interface as required.
I've seen many unprofessional programs, which produced weird things on my computer.
The worst example was a program which forced a 1024 x 768 res on my poor 14" monitor!
Of course, I don't mean here to provide mono-herc support for nowadays software, but we (mean here developers) should provide support for low-end HW as well.
If you're expecting from the user to change every year his/her monitor then you probably are a snob or just a reach guy, who doesn't care for the rest of the world. It's really a disgusting behaviour.
Currently I use a 21" Sony monitor, with 1280 x 1024 res., at 100Hz vert. refresh, 24 bit color depth.
My needs for such a pro monitor are understadable, as I use it 8-10 hours a day.
At work,
Two 19" (38" desktops kick ass)
Both monitors are Sceptres at 1280x1024 @ 85hz (better on the eyes)
Similar at home.
I figure if you are gonna drop the cash for a larger monitor, you might as well make the most use out of your available landscape.
I only run vc++ maximized (on one monitor), all other windows are never maximized. It makes it easier flipping from one to the other.
As a result, I really don't care what the minimum res is, my browser rarely exceeds 800x600 on my desktop anyway. Unless they set min res to 1600x1400 :D
Wow! 2 19" monitors? Is it 19" viewable or 19" total size?
I hate having to write code to test if the current string using the current font and current screen res will fit in the small area I have to display. I have more info than will fit on a single Excel speadsheet row.
If you run under 1000+, I just tell you at start, bad things are going to happen, or text will be too small to read.
>>>
Why does everyone use such low res? What size monitors and video cards do you guys have?
<<<
Doesn't matter, it is what my customers have that counts. Typically, most of my customers want to spend as little as possible on hardware, that generally means a small monitor and a crap video card. If I produce something spectacular, they will only complain. 800 x 600 "should be enough for anyone"!
Nope, its actually like 18.1" viewable on the horizontal, but 19 just sounds cooler.Quote:
Wow! 2 19" monitors? Is it 19" viewable or 19" total size?
It's so much better for coding/debugging. You can see dialogs getting built as you step through. And windows messages get processed closer to real life as the window is visible on one monitor and the debug window is on the other!
Bug your bosses for an extra monitor and vid card (or get a dual head card) They'll make their money back in productivity :D
Cheers and Merry Ho Ho (if you celebrate that)
Usually I use 1024x768, that's what i've been most comfortable with as long as I can remember. Everytime I change it it just feels too awkward.
I really don't think 800x600 is low resolution; that's what I use! Right now, I'm using a 15-inch monitor and a Cirrus Logic 546X video card that came with my old, 1998 machine. The debate has really been over whether 640x480 should still be supported; I think not. When my computer goes into 1,024x768 or whatever, the desktop icons appear tiny and so does almost everything else. Upgrading every other year is expensive, even for a computer geek!
Man, I invented this question...
Anyway, I don't feel like voting, so I'll just
say what I'm at. 1024x768...