What Resolution do You Use?

[Jason Dunn]

I'm looking at relaxing our template restriction of having images a maximum of 400 pixels wide, and wanted to know what monitor resolution you're running. The reason we have the 400 pixel-wide restrictions on the graphics is to keep the site 800 x 600 resolution friendly. But I have to wonder, given the audience I know we have, how many of you are running at that resolution. This is for desktop/laptops, not for Pocket PCs of course. :wink:<br /><br />I run in 1280 x 1024, but I find that I rarely run the browser full screen, so if you want to really get technical, answer the question below based on the window size you normally run your browser in if you don't go full screen.<br /><br />The bottom line here is that we want to avoid the evil horizontal scrolling, but still have images that are of a reasonable size on a high-resolution monitor. Feedback welcome!

[JonnoB]

I have a 1600x1200 display on a 21" LCD.... doesn't everyone use a high-resolution display? :)

[Jimmy Dodd]

1600x1200 on dual monitors for a total of 3200 x 1200, baby! No horizontal scrolling for me. 8)

[ux4484]

I toggle between 1024x768 and 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD

Having old and near sided eyes, I usually browse at 1024x768

[Wuss912]

I have a 1600x1200 display on a 21" LCD.... doesn't everyone use a high-resolution display? :)

thats what i run on my laptop
but i dont run ie fullscreen so i chose 800x600 so i can run 4 browsers at once &lt;EG> :twisted:

[Janak Parekh]

I have a 1600x1200 display on a 21" LCD.... doesn't everyone use a high-resolution display? :)
Same here (though on a 20" LCD), but I don't keep the browser maximized.

Here's the problem, Jason: all of us hardcore users use that high resolution, but the guests who visit the site occasionally might not. I have a feeling this poll won't give you an accurate answer. I can say that most of my customers use their workstations at 800x600. When I hit the site from the road, I'm often stuck with that resolution -- so I prefer the way things are now. :)

--janak

[karen]

I can say that most of my customers use their workstations at 800x600. When I hit the site from the road, I'm often stuck with that resolution -- so I prefer the way things are now. :)


That's my issue, too. Have a 16" laptop that I run at 1600, but most of my client's machines run at half that on 14 or 15 inch monitors. Ugly, but much easier on the budget when you buy machines in batches of thousands.

Karen

[DimensionZero]

Yeah, I find that most users still have their resolutions set at 800 x 600... You should set up a script to grab the screen resolutions and log them somewhere and see what you get.

[dean_shan]

I have a ghetto laptop that I dug out the trash, that runs 800x600. My home and work desktops run at 1280x1024.

[djdj]

I didn't see an option for 4928 x 1200. I think the survey is incomplete.

[element]

FYI, after posting my vote, and clicking the 'view results', the entire site was loaded into your embeded iframe.

Now about resolution, I am currently running 1280x1024 on a 21" Dell trinitron flat display. Any smaller I have to push my nose up against the screen to be able to code.

:way to go:

[JonnoB]

Actually considering that the Pocket PC screen is so small, I am not sure those computer users who need to use a lower resolution for vision reasons are good candidates to be Pocket PC users.

[roncri]

You may not have to run a poll to find the resolution. Monitor resolution is one of the stats that some web server log. You could also gather the information via code.

-Ron

[Stillwater]

I read the site three to four times a day on four different devices/computers. Two of which are desktops. My personal machine can handle the hi-res no prob, however the other machine only supports 800x600 (14" monitor & old video card). So I would like to leave it the way it is. 8)

:D Perhaps you could create link to pop-up a full size image if the graphic is clicked on. That would leave the main page up and provide quick access to the larger images.

PS. My other two devices are a palm m505 :devilboy: (needs to be replaced soon I think, maybe the HP with the integrated keyboard?) and a Sonyericsson t68i (and yes, I can read the site just fine on this device)

[cmorris]

I'm surprised no one else is running 1400x1050 on their laptops as I am. I find it to be a nice middle ground without having to lug a monster 15"+ laptop around. :lol:

[david291]

Monitor is at 1920x1440, but like many others use the browser window no wider than 800.

[burtman007]

Here at work, I run 1280x1024 on a 17" flat panel. If I undock, the laptop runs 1400x1050.

The minimum we run around here is 1024x768. Same at the last place I worked too. Too many sites are already 1024. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em!

[element]

Here where I work (Internet Marketing Firm) we have adopted 1024 standards. Since more than 50% are at 1024 or greater, it's better to code to fit the screen than come noticably short of content.

[kiwi]

Although I have 1400x1024 on my laptop 15" I prefer a smaller footprint for IE as then I can have several windows open at once..

:mrgreen:

[jt3]

My main computer runs 1280x1024 on a 21" CRT (how does everyone afford these 21" LCDs??? I think I need to send you my address... I'll take your leavin's after the holidays!!!).

Anyway, I run a bit lower than the monitor is capable of, mainly because my significant other has a hard time seing microscopic desktop fonts... at least... that's how she puts it. My laptop runs 1024x768 because I didn't like the response of 1280x1024. Anyone else think laptop video chipsets suck?

[Jason Dunn]

I didn't see an option for 4928 x 1200. I think the survey is incomplete.

1280 x 1024 or higher

4928 x 1200? Show off. :lol:

[Iznot Gold]

Jonathan...I'm a partially sighted PPC user. I have font sizes set to max....and don't read books on it....but I love it!
Ar home I run at 1024x768 with some screen magnification. At work I have to run at 800 x 600 because some the software runs over the network & doesn't allow for screen magnification as font sizes / cloours are server assigned.
Regards
David

[petvas]

I use 1280 x1024 on my lovely 19" Eizo L767 LCD!!!
The display results show that 1024x768 should be the minimum supported resolution...

[Pat Rice]

1152x864.

[cmorris]

One other thing to consider... I run my IE instance with the Favorites pane open most of the time for easy access, so that reduces the amount of width available.

[PJE]

The other issue is the bandwidth required to transmit the images..

At work I use a laptop running 1400x1050 over a SHARED 56K modem. At home my desktop has a 1280x1024 TFT over a cable modem.

I wouldn't mind the images being larger in pixels, but watch the file sizes.

[wocket]

Currently 1024X768 @home with the same in work.

My laptop is 10" widescreen 1280x600 so lots of scrolling (vertical).

Sometimes I even use my 32" widescreen TV (880x600 I think) with IE's font size set to largest.

Pocket PC Thoughts currently looks good no matter what I use.

[dean_shan]

I didn't see an option for 4928 x 1200. I think the survey is incomplete.

What do you do? Are you a graphic artist or somthing?

[jgrnt1]

1280x1024 on a 19" LCD at home, but like cmorris, I have my Favorites pane open, so the screen width is reduced. At work or on the road, 1024x768, no Favorites pane.

As much as I would like to see larger photos, I think you should keep it the way it is now, so you can accomodate everyone, including the resolution and bandwidth constrained.

[djdj]

1280 x 1024 or higher

4928 x 1200? Show off. :lol:

Actually I forgot to include the DLP projector... so it's really more like 5952 x 1200. :-)

Monitor 4 (15" LCD): 1024x768
Monitor 3 (17" CRT): 1152x864
Monitor 1 (19" CRT): 1600x1200
Monitor 2 (17" CRT): 1152x864
Projector (100" DLP): 1024x768

Yes, I do use all the monitors when I'm developing software. Code on one, help files on another, design windows on another, web sites or email on the 4th.

And all of the above doesn't include the NTSC monitor that is connected for video editing. My desk is quite full. ;-)

[B]

I surf at high resolutions, but like to keep the browser narrow and tall. The image dimensions on the site are fine, but having them linked to larger versions would be a nice option.

If you do the links, please don't do Javascript new window popup links (they can be super slow depending on client configuration/cpu resources and often end up not being the correct dimensions resulting in clipped images or scroll bars). Just make them simple direct links to the images - not even opening in a new window. If people want them to open a new window they can right click or just CTRL-click. Just my preference.

Of course with the fancy Thoughts Content Management System maybe these high rez image launch options could be user set preferences. :wink:

[element]

Oh, for those of you that deal with screen resolutions, but are tired of doing an entire display change, check out this killer app called appropriately, 'Sizer'. This is not a plug. I have no affiliation with the author. I just use it minutely and have found it indispensable.

http://www.brianapps.net/sizer.html

[Janak Parekh]

Oh, for those of you that deal with screen resolutions, but are tired of doing an entire display change, check out this killer app called appropriately, 'Sizer'. This is not a plug. I have no affiliation with the author. I just use it minutely and have found it indispensable.
OOOH! This is awesome! Thanks for the link. I still need to develop Access, etc. apps at 800x600, and I've done the painful approach of resizing my screen, dragging the window to the right position, and then resizing the screen back. 8O

--janak

[stitics]

1152x864.

Me too....I was wondering if I'd find anyone else running at this resolution.

[kiwi]

Oh, for those of you that deal with screen resolutions, but are tired of doing an entire display change, check out this killer app called appropriately, 'Sizer'. This is not a plug. I have no affiliation with the author. I just use it minutely and have found it indispensable.


oh my.. so simple.. yet why did I never think to do that??!! thanks for the heads up on the utility

b

[wbuch]

I have a 1600x1200 display on a 21" LCD.... doesn't everyone use a high-resolution display? :)
Same here (though on a 20" LCD), but I don't keep the browser maximized.

Here's the problem, Jason: all of us hardcore users use that high resolution, but the guests who visit the site occasionally might not. I have a feeling this poll won't give you an accurate answer. I can say that most of my customers use their workstations at 800x600. When I hit the site from the road, I'm often stuck with that resolution -- so I prefer the way things are now. :)

--janak

I agree, but think you should have gotten technical in phrasing the question. :) I run at 1600x1200, but my browser window is normally only 917 wide, which translates to 800x600 without having to increase it. So even a lot of the answerees might not have answered the question correctly (giving only the resolution they're running at). If you could do it, what would be even better than grabbing what resolution your visitors are running at would be the width of the browser window they're using.

[dean_shan]

Oh, for those of you that deal with screen resolutions, but are tired of doing an entire display change, check out this killer app called appropriately, 'Sizer'. This is not a plug. I have no affiliation with the author. I just use it minutely and have found it indispensable.

http://www.brianapps.net/sizer.html

Thank's for the link. This is so simple, why hasn't anyone thought of it before? It would be nice if the next SP and/or version of windows has that built-in.

[ctmagnus]

I'm not about to disclose the resolution of my desktop (there needs to be some unknowns in the world :wink: ) but I have my browser window set slightly larger than 800*600.

[spg]

Ok... first I can't convince Jason he needs a Tablet PC instead of his fancy new laptop. Then he goes and leaves Tablet PCs out of the resolution poll. What am I going to do? :|

:) Ok... anyway, I usually browse the site at 768x1024. This is portrait mode on a Tablet PC. So even at the current max size for front page pictures, I will run into times when I have to scroll. For this reason I would vote to keep it the way it is now, with links to bigger pictures if need be.

[element]

Yooooouuuuuuuu're welcome.

[jfreiman]

I have my resolution set to 1280x1024 but I NEVER browse web pages at that resolution. I have my IE window set at approx 800x600 - which I LOVE.

Don't change a thing.

[Gerard]

aaaaaaaaannnnnddd.... up steps the grouchy guy!

Here's the thing. You immediately excluded Pocket IE users from relevance, though this is a Pocket PC-centric site. I realise that you have a paid subscription available for the mobile version, but I am perpetually broke, being an anti-capitalist and always undercharging my customers (sometimes not charging them at all, which really bugs them a lot), and hence have trouble meeting the rent and ISP bills each month, never mind buying food. Subscriptions are out of the question for me. I never even buy software titles or hardware any more, reviewing them instead, as a sort of barter. So no, I'll not be subscribing unless a sack of money falls on my head.

The problem with this situation, as I see it, is that in choosing to a) offer an ideally-resolved version of the site for PPC users for a fee, and b) now seriously considering adding in very large images, you are actively discouraging the most rabid among us PPC enthusiasts from heavy participation in the forums! I'd be here like stink on old fish, every day, if I didn't have to scroll sideways like a banshee to do so. And the new version of the site, starting sometime early in the summer I guess, has my PIE version (a 3835) downloading but not displaying all the icons and button graphics in all the threads, making them appear as huge boxes with nothing in them of use except the Alt text. With so much side-scrolling it's just no fun at all.

For mysterious reasons, as yet unanswered in a thread I posted there, Brighthand went funny the same way overnight last night. I can no longer see icons and button graphics there, though banners in GIF and JPG are just fine. Suddenly Brighthand is three times wider, and my interest just bottomed out. With a few thousand posts there, I'll be semi-retiring now, as it's just far too much work to follow threads that way. In my view, it's Brighthand's loss, as I have always been a very helpful and heavy contributor. I'd be the same here, if not for the obstacles thrown in the way of PIE use. Coupled with the dialuy connection which is all I can afford, it would seem I am being gradually excluded from active participation in the community I have enjoyed so well. Too bad. My loss too.

[Scott R]

I use 1024x7068. The problem with designing a web page around a resolution higher than 800x600 (aside from the issue of creating problems with users still stuck at 800x600 or less) is that you really don't want to have too many words per line, as it hurts readability.

Scott

[maximus]

At office I use 1600x1200. But I have this habit of right-click-open-in-new window, and the 'spawned' IE usually opens not full screen (around 1024x768).

[dean_shan]

At office I use 1600x1200. But I have this habit of right-click-open-in-new window, and the 'spawned' IE usually opens not full screen (around 1024x768).

That is the way to go. I never left click when I am surfing. I find it to be faster.

[Janak Parekh]

Here's the thing. You immediately excluded Pocket IE users from relevance, though this is a Pocket PC-centric site. I realise that you have a paid subscription available for the mobile version, but I am perpetually broke, being an anti-capitalist and always undercharging my customers (sometimes not charging them at all, which really bugs them a lot), and hence have trouble meeting the rent and ISP bills each month, never mind buying food.
Whoa... hang on one second. :) Jason's talking about the desktop frontpage layout, not the forums' layout, and as such the mobile version of the frontpage, which is free, is not going to become any less PIE-friendly. In other words, it should be largely status quo for your PIE experience.

--janak

[gorkon280]

I run 1280x1024, but rarely run browser at full screen. I generally run that in a quad view (4 windows tiled).

[Gerard]

Oh. Oops. Sorry. Look away.

[tospappy]

I am getting old and my eyes are going fast. I am getting old and had to down size my house and therefore have a small monitor. If I use anything about 800 X 600 on my 17 inch monitor, I couldn't read it anyway.

[Alexis]

Here's the thing. You immediately excluded Pocket IE users from relevance....
Whoa... hang on one second. :) Jason's talking about the desktop frontpage layout, not the forums' layout, ....
--janak
umm, now that it was brought up: the images of the front page are the same size in the desktop and mobile versions. the dell ppc picture was WAY out of the screen... Auto-resize on IE works similarly to making a picture smaller by cutting out strips of the picture, (in short: looks bad )also... there isn't affordable unlimited gprs in europe .... having bigger pictures wont make the site better... it's not size that matters guys, it's how you use it ... [them]

[rmasinag]

I have a 6 yr. old Sony 15 inch(13 viewable) monitor. So I can only crank it to 1024 X 768. :cry:

[Janak Parekh]

umm, now that it was brought up: the images of the front page are the same size in the desktop and mobile versions. the dell ppc picture was WAY out of the screen... Auto-resize on IE works similarly to making a picture smaller by cutting out strips of the picture
Really? It should just scale it down. Perhaps that Dell picture didn't scale well, but in my experiences, I've been reasonably happy with the auto-resized result of the PPCT homepage. Maybe I just see the page with really small images? Maybe it's my eyes? 8O ;)

there isn't affordable unlimited gprs in europe .... having bigger pictures wont make the site better... it's not size that matters guys, it's how you use it ... [them]
This is a good point. ;) Our bandwidth costs would theoretically go up as well.

--janak

[Jason Dunn]

umm, now that it was brought up: the images of the front page are the same size in the desktop and mobile versions.

Right. That's a problem we have to deal with, either through dynamic server resizing of the images on the mobile version, or excluding them and offering them as a link for people who want them.

[Jeff Rutledge]

I have a 19" monitor at home and at work, both set to 1280x1024. But since I travel with just my laptop quite a bit, I voted 1024x768 as it's the lowest common denominator.

[maximus]

there isn't affordable unlimited gprs in europe ....

Same here. I have to turn off all images when browsing on GPRS, otherwise I might miss mortgage payment. :devilboy:

I think making the images bigger is a good idea, easier to see on desktop. While browsing on mobile, we can turn of the images anyway.

[daS]

I didn't see an option for 4928 x 1200. I think the survey is incomplete.

1280 x 1024 or higher
However, you did forget us Lifebook P2110 users with 16x9 ratio screens: 1280x760. So do I vote for wide or short? (I think that's the same question that will be on our California recall balot.) :roll:

[Cortex]

i prefer to keep my desktop and laptop resolution at 320x240.

it is the best resolution available! who would want anything higher???

[Alexis]

umm, now that it was brought up: the images of the front page are the same size in the desktop and mobile versions.

Right. That's a problem we have to deal with, either through dynamic server resizing of the images on the mobile version, or excluding them and offering them as a link for people who want them.
How about ... when making a post, suppose of NameofImage.jpg... if you made a smaller version of the image and then saved it as NameofImageSmall.jpg
Now, when the php code runs on the mobile verion site... all your italian guy needs to add is a code to see if NameofImageSMALL.jpg exists, and if it does, that would replace the bigger image. The only extra work from you guys: just having to save the file twice in 2 sizes

[Jean Ichbiah]

You concentrate on images but What about the text size?

With 50% people using the higher resolution, it is about time the forum starts to use a resizable style sheet, with fonts defined as % as opposed to absolute size. Internet Explorer being the lame browser it is, absolute font cannot be changed with View/Text Size and this forum comes much too small on high resolution. When a thread is really interesting, that forces me to reopen it in Opera or Mozilla.

[colintan-ppcsg]

I admire all of you rich people who can afford big screens and big LCDs....

but remember that there are always computers still 15" CRT (like mine :cry: ) and urm I think for me it's should be standard to fix the main layout of ANY website to 800x600, because you cannot assume everyone is using higher resolutions.

Yes, horizontal scrolling is evil and whenever I stumble upon a site designed for 1024 or above, I get very frustrated.

Of course, it's okay for certain special cases like detailed images to have horizontal scrolling. BTW the rule for maximum image width to prevent horizontal scrolling on 800x600 is 770 pixels and I always stick to that (I'm a web designer too)

You may ask why can't I change to 1024x768 on a 15". Yes, my graphic card and monitor can support it, but I'm just not used to it as the text is a little small. I only use higher resolutions when I need a large workspace for e.g. using Flash.