Is 800 x 600 old hat?

B

Blinky the Shark

Animesh said:
Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites, however.

Screen Resolutions
1 1024x768 50.90%
2 1280x1024 16.81%
3 800x600 8.93%
4 1280x800 8.20%
5 1152x864 3.99%
6 1440x900 2.77%
7 1680x1050 1.85%
8 1280x768 1.26%
9 1280x960 1.07%
10 1400x1050 1.00%

Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20

What is the size of these people's browser viewports?
 
N

Neredbojias

Here is an interesting piece of information from w3counter. The median
claim you have seems correct. And about 9% people use 800 by 600 px
resolution. This data is generated on a small subset of websites,
however.

Screen Resolutions
1 1024x768 50.90%
2 1280x1024 16.81%
3 800x600 8.93%
4 1280x800 8.20%
5 1152x864 3.99%
6 1440x900 2.77%
7 1680x1050 1.85%
8 1280x768 1.26%
9 1280x960 1.07%
10 1400x1050 1.00%


Ref: http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php?date=2007-05-20

That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually takes the
lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical flatscreen. I was a
long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the majority size was still
640x480 by far.

What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect ratio.

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
That is about what I figured though I'll bet 1280x1024 eventually
takes the lead unless it's replaced sooner by another typical
flatscreen. I was a long-time fan of 1024x768, using it when the
majority size was still 640x480 by far.

What do you have? I like my 1280x1024 'cept for the unusual aspect
ratio.

As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
those?
 
N

Neredbojias

As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
those?

Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next
monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)

I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go that
high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the screen
elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform. <g>

--
Neredbojias

Once I had a little dog
Who wagged its tail spritely.
But it walked by the harvestor
And now is shorter slightly.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
Maybe not. Again there's a wierd aspect ratio. But I'm with you; my next

IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and 20"
monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the 21"
and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling when
reading a page), and am less interested in horizontal geography.
monitor will be 1600x1200 (-unless the price is waaay outta line.)

I'm waiting for a good deal on a Samsung 204B. Might want to look at
this one yourself, if you haven't.

http://tinyurl.com/ypow9f
I was actually surprised that this monitor (Sony SDM-HS95P) didn't go that
high. My old crt (NEC) with the oem ATI driver did, though the screen
elements were a, uh, bit small on the 15" platform. <g>

I'll bet they were. :)

I'm using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19", which I don't think will do
1600x1200. My last Trinitron would, but at that (same) size for me the
elements were a little small. They should be fine with the two more
inches diagonal that moving to a 20" LCD from the 19" CRTs provide.
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Blinky said:
IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and 20"

IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)
monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in the 21"
and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less scrolling when

WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes. :)
 
A

Andy Dingley

Yep. My Mac is arranged like this:

19" LCD (1280 x 1024) landscape (video preview)
30" ACD (2560 x 1600) landscape (workspace)
19" LCD (1024 x 1280) portrait (web pages, reference art etc)

My desktop is stretched across all 3 desktops,

Size queen 8-P
 
A

Andy Dingley

Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

No. I used to, in that I used to keep image sizes down to about 600 px
longest dimension. Now I use 800px longest instead.

As for text content, you should of course make it fluid.

200 px devices (phones etc) are increasingly important, but they'll
generally have their image sizes transcoded by the network beforehand.
Fluid design is still important for the text though.
 
N

Neredbojias

IT seems to be the default for wide-screen aspect ratios for 19" and
20" monitors. I see that (and 1920 x something) everywhere, even in
the 21" and 22" monitors. *I* wan't more vertical space (less
scrolling when reading a page), and am less interested in horizontal
geography.

As long as it doesn't stretch vids and images up-and-down-wise. I've
seen flat screens that were about as faithful to intrinsic aspect ratios
as a husband is to an ex-wife.
I'm waiting for a good deal on a Samsung 204B. Might want to look at
this one yourself, if you haven't.

http://tinyurl.com/ypow9f

Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your sand
dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)
I'll bet they were. :)

I'm using a Sony Trinitron Multiscan 400PS 19", which I don't think
will do 1600x1200. My last Trinitron would, but at that (same) size
for me the elements were a little small. They should be fine with the
two more inches diagonal that moving to a 20" LCD from the 19" CRTs
provide.

It's amazing how often I hear that everything would be fine with just 2
more inches.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nosin'.

-Burma Shave
 
N

Neredbojias

IT, not Information Technology. Grrrrrrr. :)


WANT! Typo! I know there's no apostrophe in "want", fer crissakes.
:)

Watch out, there was a news item in the Sydney Herald about people shark
hunting with a cheap and common drugstore balm. They just purchase some
Vicks Vapo Rub, separate the ingredients in a neighborhhod meth lab, seed
the ocean in a likely spot, and wait for the sharks to sit around the
camphor telling fish stories.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nosin'.

-Burma Shave
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
As long as it doesn't stretch vids and images up-and-down-wise. I've

Yeah, that would suck.
seen flat screens that were about as faithful to intrinsic aspect ratios
as a husband is to an ex-wife.

Looks reasonable although I'm less-than thrilled with what they said
about the display uniformity. The price is good (-less'n all your sand
dollars have washed away on the tides of life...)

It's been $350US for a long time. I'm waiting for the first price I see
under $299. I've seen them in stores, and haven't personally noticed
anything bad about the display, but perhaps I wasn't looking hard
enough. I'll look again before buying. I don't know if I'd ever use
the rotation feature, but I think it's cool. I dunno what my graphics
adapter thinks about it, though.
It's amazing how often I hear that everything would be fine with just 2
more inches.

:)
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
Watch out, there was a news item in the Sydney Herald about people shark
hunting with a cheap and common drugstore balm. They just purchase some
Vicks Vapo Rub, separate the ingredients in a neighborhhod meth lab, seed
the ocean in a likely spot, and wait for the sharks to sit around the
camphor telling fish stories.

Yok! :) Thanks.
 
B

Bernhard Sturm

Infant said:
Do you still design to the 800 x 600 ""STANDARD"" ?

If not, what do you use?

screen resolution != desktop-size != browser size != viewport size
(PointedEars' Standard-Floskeln
[http://pointedears.de/psf/index.de#general])

Please be aware that 97% of all visitors will see your site with a
viewport-size of at least 740px, whereas only 50% of your visitors will
use a viewport size of >1020px...

the choice is up to you...

(http://aktuell.de.selfhtml.org/weblog/aufloesung-viewport)

cheers
bernhard
 
N

Neredbojias

It's been $350US for a long time. I'm waiting for the first price I
see under $299. I've seen them in stores, and haven't personally
noticed anything bad about the display, but perhaps I wasn't looking
hard enough. I'll look again before buying. I don't know if I'd ever
use the rotation feature, but I think it's cool. I dunno what my
graphics adapter thinks about it, though.

What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than others. My
Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as well as the usual
brightness, contrast, and gamma. This is helpful because the adjustments
on the Sony really kinda suck.

I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go down
eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just a couple of years
ago they were double and more. It pays to wait.

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave
 
D

David Segall

Blinky the Shark said:
As for me, 1400x1050; I'm shopping for 1600x1200. Meanwhile, the low
numbers up there for 1680x1050 stun me. While shopping for my new
monitor, I see what seems like 70% of the models on the shelves are
1680x1050 (or a bit fewer vertical pixels). What...*nobody* is buying
those?
I bought two :) One for my computer and one for my MythTV HTPC. I am
convinced that 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitors will replace 4:3
monitors because they will become the standard for television viewing
and will be much cheaper because of the huge market for them.
 
D

David Segall

Sherm Pendley said:
Still? I never did.


Flexible markup that works at any resolution.
Can you post the URL of a site of yours, or anyone else, that does
this?
 
B

Blinky the Shark

Neredbojias said:
What kind do you have? Some adapters have more options than others. My
Nvidia on the one 'puter can adjust RGB colors as well as the usual

An old GeForce2 MX400.

It'll do 1600x1200, which is my goal, but I don't think wide-screen
formats were around back when I got the adapter.
brightness, contrast, and gamma. This is helpful because the adjustments
on the Sony really kinda suck.

I'd imagine, all things considered, that the price *will* go down
eventually, but maybe not soon. It's amazing, like just a couple of years
ago they were double and more. It pays to wait.

I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300 clams.
:)
 
B

Blinky the Shark

David said:
I bought two :) One for my computer and one for my MythTV HTPC. I am
convinced that 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio monitors will replace 4:3
monitors because they will become the standard for television viewing
and will be much cheaper because of the huge market for them.

I agree.

I was a hold-out. I used to say, re "multimedia" computers, "No, I
haven't confused my TV and stereo, which are over there on the opposite
wall, with my computer, which is on the desk in front of me."

Then, after joining Netflix a year ago, I started watching movies on DVD
on my laptop (which has a wide-screen 15" display). By now, I've
watched a few here on my Linux desktop (19" 4:3).

I'm so ashamed. ;)
 
N

Neredbojias

An old GeForce2 MX400.

It'll do 1600x1200, which is my goal, but I don't think wide-screen
formats were around back when I got the adapter.

Er, scratch what I said above. I have a GeForce 7300 LE which does the
color adjust. (-NVidia was *last* 'puter.) Apparently it's limited to
1280x1024, though, (unless the monitor has something to do with it??)

I'm just a po' farm boy tryin' to survive in this here city with his silo
intact.
I admit, I'm presently tempted to give up and shell out the 300 clams.
:)

Ahh, don't be an octopussy! Clams don't grow on trees (but then trees
don't grow on clams, either.)

--
Neredbojias

Never doubt
The path you've chosen.
If others mock,
Just thumb your nos'n.
- Burma Shave
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,482
Members
44,901
Latest member
Noble71S45

Latest Threads

Top