What is your screen resolution?

What is your screen resolution?

  • 1024 x 768

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • 1440 x 960

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • 1280 x 1024

    Votes: 6 12.8%

  • 1680 x 1050

    Votes: 11 23.4%

  • 1600 x 1200

    Votes: 5 10.6%

  • 1920 x 1200 or higher

    Votes: 15 31.9%
  • Total voters
    47
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fatbat

Fatbat

Advertise Here
May 10, 2008
6,988
149
63
Costa del Sol, Spain
www.linkedin.com
Working on my portfolio and am wondering what you lot have your screen resolutions set to? I am working to 1280x1024 but am worried I should be supporting lower res than this... though it is designed for web professionals and not your mom. I would expect everyone looking at the work would be 1280x1024 or higher, but just in case lets see...
 


hannahmcintyre said:
I'm on 1280 x 800, but there's no option for that.
Click to expand...

Ditto, on my 13" widescreen macbook.

I aim primarily at supporting at the very least 1024 wide. ( a lil bit of negative space on a slightly larger monitor can be good depending).

Other than the rumored side effects, you could install google analytics to see what rez your visitors have. For example the site ipodtouchanswers.com I started late last month (averages around 200 uniques a day), gets the following % of screen resolutions:

ita_screens.png


#5 is obviously those with ipod touches or iphones visiting the site.
 
No Idea.

Got a sweet widescreen LCD and for the first time I dont feel the need to screw with the settings.
 
3840x1200 on my primary desktop machine.

My laptop can only do 1680x1050 - great size for it's 15 inch screen, everything looks great on it.
 
leafyd said:
No Idea.

Got a sweet widescreen LCD and for the first time I dont feel the need to screw with the settings.
Click to expand...

You got a "sweet widescreen LCD", and you didn't even bother to check the resolution before purchase?

That's like saying you got a kick ass HDTV, and didn't bother to see if it was 720i or 1080p.

Maevn said:
3840x1200 on my primary desktop machine.

My laptop can only do 1680x1050 - great size for it's 15 inch screen, everything looks great on it.
Click to expand...


Friend of mine has a laptop like that, I wasn't expecting that high of a rez on a 15" But apparently it cost him a pretty penny due to that fact. But ya, higher pixel density looks much smoother graphically when they do it right.
 
kblessinggr said:
You got a "sweet widescreen LCD", and you didn't even bother to check the resolution before purchase?

That's like saying you got a kick ass HDTV, and didn't bother to see if it was 720i or 1080p.
Click to expand...


Got it off craigslist. I was highly motivated at the time.
 
kblessinggr said:
Friend of mine has a laptop like that, I wasn't expecting that high of a rez on a 15" But apparently it cost him a pretty penny due to that fact. But ya, higher pixel density looks much smoother graphically when they do it right.
Click to expand...

Yeah, most 15'' notebooks usually come equipped with 1440x900 most of the time. This notebook was actually geared towards high-end users and gamers specifically so it's got all the bells and whistles.

Even has a little snazzy OLED display above the keyboard that you can customize to display messages, MSN/email alerts, and a bunch of other fun stuff.

With these tiny little light and small 'netbooks' being the new thing and every company bringing them out, it's hard to resist. I want one.
 
Maevn said:
Yeah, most 15'' notebooks usually come equipped with 1440x900 most of the time. This notebook was actually geared towards high-end users and gamers specifically so it's got all the bells and whistles.

Even has a little snazzy OLED display above the keyboard that you can customize to display messages, MSN/email alerts, and a bunch of other fun stuff.

With these tiny little light and small 'netbooks' being the new thing and every company bringing them out, it's hard to resist. I want one.
Click to expand...

I was expecting 1024x768 of his laptop (a P3/800), as before that time my Apple Studio 15" LCD was 1024x768 and I paid 600$ for that (then again, apple, prices, nuff said).
 
kblessinggr said:
I was expecting 1024x768 of his laptop (a P3/800), as before that time my Apple Studio 15" LCD was 1024x768 and I paid 600$ for that (then again, apple, prices, nuff said).
Click to expand...

Appple prices are just absurd.

I tried convincing myself it was a good idea to get a MacBook Pro back instead of picking up the ASUS G50 (the laptop I have right now) but all the other laptops in the same relative price-range had 2 times the hardware that the MBP had.

I still have never really used OSX - damn their prices.
 
Maevn said:
Appple prices are just absurd.

I tried convincing myself it was a good idea to get a MacBook Pro back instead of picking up the ASUS G50 (the laptop I have right now) but all the other laptops in the same relative price-range had 2 times the hardware that the MBP had.

I still have never really used OSX - damn their prices.
Click to expand...


PS: I use a macbook right now (2gb ram, 250gb hdd). Relatively speaking their prices have dropped since the last time I ever bought a mac (1800$ for a G4/733 back in 2002, went back to PCs after a while, then got this macbook early last year).

But monitors... can't really justify it when they're just re-branded samsungs.
 
kblessinggr said:
PS: I use a macbook right now (2gb ram, 250gb hdd). Relatively speaking their prices have dropped since the last time I ever bought a mac (1800$ for a G4/733 back in 2002, went back to PCs after a while, then got this macbook early last year).
Click to expand...

Sure, the prices may have dropped over the last few years and their latest release actually has some pretty good hardware, but the price is still a bit too high in my opinion.

Guess finding a copy of Hackintosh that will actually work will have to hold me over until I decide to say screw it, and finally buy a Mac of some kind.
 
kblessinggr said:
I aim primarily at supporting at the very least 1024 wide.
Click to expand...

It's not so much the width as the height that I'm concerned with. I make all my sites 960px these days much like the rest of main stream media (cnn, bbc, abc, ny times, london times, msnbc, mtv, espn, etc. etc.) but it's the height I'm trying to nail down.

I know 1024 x 768 is king now with the masses with 1280 x 1024 close behind. I would always make sure any sites and landers that I do for other clients cater to 768 with all important info above the fold. I was just wondering if I could get away with a more liberal usage of space on my own self promo stuff.

Working on big monitors luls you into a trap. You start to lose touch with what people on small monitors have to deal with. I made my initial prototype way too tall.
 
Fatbat said:
It's not so much the width as the height that I'm concerned with. I make all my sites 960px these days much like the rest of main stream media (cnn, bbc, abc, ny times, london times, msnbc, mtv, espn, etc. etc.) but it's the height I'm trying to nail down.

I know 1024 x 768 is king now with the masses with 1280 x 1024 close behind. I would always make sure any sites and landers that I do for other clients cater to 768 with all important info above the fold. I was just wondering if I could get away with a more liberal usage of space on my own self promo stuff.

Working on big monitors luls you into a trap. You start to lose touch with what people on small monitors have to deal with. I made my initial prototype way too tall.
Click to expand...

Well you seemed to miss some of the 1280x800 responses in the thread, as a result, least based on my visitor data (including other sites I manage), 1024x768 and 1280x800 consume more than half the visitor demographic. Meaning if you design for 1024 high in terms of being 'above the fold', then thats potentially half the visitors that won't see the "big picture".

Though it might help if you gathered realtime data yourself to determine your demographic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom