Computer monitor setting

[Captain Kidd]

OK, this is about as OT as they come, however, I'm trying to get a feel for what people set their computers to display at. I usually use 1024x768 (pixels). However, I've been told that it'd be wise to force a website I'm webmaster of down to 740 width for the 40% of people who use 800x600. After nav windows that's killing the body area.

So I got one of the few strokes of genius and deicded to ask here; BABB gets a wide range of users so I figure if anywhere I'd get a good sampling here.

So, on with the poll! (Forget the fact this is displayed after you see the poll.)

Thanks!

Hmm, if you don't know how, for Windoze, it's (don't do this if you have urges to fiddle, I've fiddled myself into reinstalling the OS before ) Start->Settings->Control Panel->Display->Settings Tab - there should be a dimension somwhere here. (No idea how... Macies?, Macers?, Macos? Maceroonies? Machead?, I like that last one. No idea how Macheads do it.)

[Mr. X]

It's 1024 x 768 by the way, like you have mentioned. I have no idea why you wrote 760 in the whachamacallit poll thingamajig.

[Captain Kidd]

Gak, you're right.
Ack! I can't fix it!

[tuffel999]

1600x1200 on one monitor 1024x768 on the other.

[Mr. X]

And you messed the last one too, it's 1152 x 864 not 1152 x 846.

Hee hee!

[tuffel999]

Hmm, if you don't know how, for Windoze, it's (don't do this if you have urges to fiddle, I've fiddled myself into reinstalling the OS before ) Start->Settings->Control Panel->Display->Settings Tab - there should be a dimension somwhere here. (No idea how... Macies?, Macers?, Macos? Maceroonies? Machead?, I like that last one. No idea how Macheads do it.)

Step 1: Check your bank account because you are now broke.

Step 2: Call someone to help, after all you did buy a mac so obviously you don't plan on doing any work on it yourself.

Step 3: If you bought one of the new ones look in the manual they are fixed resolutions. Here is a hint: 23-inch 1920x1200, 20-inch 1680x1050, 17-inch 1280x 1024

[dvb]

I use 1024x768. I hate side scrolling webpages.

[JtheArgonaut]

1024x768 on a 19" monitor. Hate scrolling sideways too [-X

[semi-sentient]

I'm at 1280x960, 32-bit color.

For the purpose of web design, you can safely make an HTML Table 770 pixels wide (assuming your page has the left margin set to 0) without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users running at 800x600 resolution. I've tested this with most web browsers. Also, it's a good idea to check global statistics from various websites. Check out the following:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (taken from thecounter.com)
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_war.asp (taken from the w3schools.com www log)

These statistics come in very handy when developing a website.

[JtheArgonaut]

I'm at 1280x960, 32-bit color.

For the purpose of web design, you can safely make an HTML Table 770 pixels wide (assuming your page has the left margin set to 0) without forcing horizontal scrollbars on users running at 800x600 resolution. I've tested this with most web browsers. Also, it's a good idea to check global statistics from various websites. Check out the following:

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp (taken from TheCounter.com)
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_war.asp (taken from the w3schools.com www log)

These statistics come in very handy when developing a website.

Hmmmm. IE seems to have a monopoly. Kind of like Frito Lay.

[tuffel999]

Mozilla for me! Or MyIE.

[Musashi]

i'm ast 1152 x 864 on a 17" monitor for some reason..

[semi-sentient]

Monopoly or not, they have the most functional web browser out there. Of course, Mozilla/Opera follow close behind in functionality so I'm glad to see them gaining popularity. Also, judging by those statistics, we can finally say goodbye to Netscape, the "brokest" web browser on the market. For you Netscape users, seriously, switch to Mozilla.

[JtheArgonaut]

Monopoly or not, they have the most functional web browser out there. Of course, Mozilla/Opera follow close behind in functionality so I'm glad to see them gaining popularity. Also, judging by those statistics, we can finally say goodbye to Netscape, the "brokest" web browser on the market. For you Netscape users, seriously, switch to Mozilla.

I should've said I have a MAC. MS apps for mac are like liquid nitrogen to them. Freeze city!

[wedgebert]

1280 x 1024 on a 17 inch monitor.

Come on people, if you can see your screen from more than arms distance away, you need to up your resolution.

[DreadCthulhu]

1024x768 on a 19" monitor. Hate scrolling sideways too [-X

Good God man, are you blind??? A 19" monitor should be running at 1280X960 at the minimum.

And about that "Internet Explorer being the most functional browser out there", I say - WHAT??? 8-[ 8-[ It doesn't even block pop-ups or have tabs, and is full of security problems.

[pmcolt]

1280x960. It baffles me how anyone, let alone 40% of your website traffic, could use 800x600 for day-to-day use. I just bumped my screen resolution down to see it, and I had to back a few feet away from the monitor to read anything.

[Visitor]

1280x1024 32-bit on an 18'' TFT.
It's not a bad idea to optimize a website for 800x600, though. Many people use this setting because they can't/don't want to afford a big monitor or use a notebook.

[Captain Kidd]

And you messed the last one too, it's 1152 x 864 not 1152 x 846.

Hee hee!

Whoops, yet another stunning dyslexia of display!

Interesting results.
I just set my work computer to 800x600. Felt like it was about to reach out and grab me.

For tables, is there a way to get it to autosize to the computer's resolution without exceeding a set amount? All this came about because the website was sizing to fit, but the larger resolutions made for long line lengths. So I'd like to tell it not to exceed, say 1000 pixels but also shrink to fit for those who have 800x600.

[semi-sentient]

And about that "Internet Explorer being the most functional browser out there", I say - WHAT??? 8-[ 8-[ It doesn't even block pop-ups or have tabs, and is full of security problems.

The pop-up blocker is a non-issue, as are the tabs. IE users can install Google's toolbar, which includes one of the best pop-up blockers I've seen. To be more specific about the functionality, I meant that IE allows developers to build better looking, more functional/customizable websites (mostly because of superior CSS and DHTML support). The security problems I'm aware of, but all browsers are exploitable (primarily XSS and DoS attacks). The risks are acceptable.

[JtheArgonaut]

1024x768 on a 19" monitor. Hate scrolling sideways too [-X

Good God man, are you blind??? A 19" monitor should be running at 1280X960 at the minimum.

And about that "Internet Explorer being the most functional browser out there", I say - WHAT??? 8-[ 8-[ It doesn't even block pop-ups or have tabs, and is full of security problems.

Blind? A little. Those words are about an inch long and 3/16 high. That's not big to me.
Thank God Linux is beginning to take hold on both PC and Macs (IBM/OSX) Soon we will be on the same page and windows can be booted out the....window =D>

[Thumper]

Well you guys made me feel like a dork for having 600x800 on a 15.5 (actual)" monitor. So I tried upping it. I figured I could always go back to where I was. I screwed up everything. My wallpaper, my ture color settings. It took me a couple of hours to get back where I was. Sorry, for now I'll stay with 6x8. Anything higher gave me irritating screen flicker and I didn't like the fuzziness of the images. Perhaps when my office updates computers and monitors I'll experiment again. I'm working with an old Nanao Flexscan F550i monitor.

[Captain Kidd]

Heh, whoops. Actually I did something similar with my home PC. It could go down to 640 x 480 so I decided to try it. Crashed the friggin thing. :x

However, I've now upped my work PC (19") to 1152 x 864, but don't think I can do that with the home one yet, 17" and a wife who thinks 1024 x 768 is 'small enough'. Oh well, soon I'm gonna get my own PC with a 21" so. :P

For those with 1280 x something. My PC has about 3 or so different height options, 960, 1024, and I think there was also 1152; what gives with that? Seems like it'd mess with the character height.

[johnwitts]

I run 1280x1024, but I have a nagging problem. Windows lets you move the taskbar around, so I have mine down the left hand side. When a new window open, or real player or media player, stuff like that, it assumes the taskbar is at the bottom, and either I lose the left side of my window behind my 'fixed' taskbar, or bizarrely, moves the window to the right by the width of the taskbar x2 and I lose the right side of the window off the screen.

So there.

[siriusastronomer]

I've got 1280 x 1024 on a 17" (i think) monitor. Funny thing, the monitors at school are the same size (actually...i have pretty much the exact same computers that we have at school...only mine's better cuz...well...its mine) but for some reason the girls like to see how insanely huge they can get all their windows. I'll constantly be changing the resolution up from 800x600 or 1260X1024

[gethen]

1280x960. It baffles me how anyone, let alone 40% of your website traffic, could use 800x600 for day-to-day use. I just bumped my screen resolution down to see it, and I had to back a few feet away from the monitor to read anything.

Oh yeah? Well I bumped mine up from 800x600 to see what the difference was, and now I need my glasses to read the screen. So I may go back to 800x600. Maybe the lower resolution is intended for those of us without 20-20 vision.

[tuffel999]

Well you guys made me feel like a dork for having 600x800 on a 15.5 (actual)" monitor. So I tried upping it. I figured I could always go back to where I was. I screwed up everything. My wallpaper, my ture color settings. It took me a couple of hours to get back where I was. Sorry, for now I'll stay with 6x8. Anything higher gave me irritating screen flicker and I didn't like the fuzziness of the images. Perhaps when my office updates computers and monitors I'll experiment again. I'm working with an old Nanao Flexscan F550i monitor.

If you are running a pc try these settings: 1024x768, 78 Hz.

Also not to nit pick it is 15.8 viewable.

If that doesn't work update the drivers for you videocard. If that doesn't work your monitor might be telling you to buy a replacement. :wink:

[Celestial Mechanic]

1152 x 864 x 32-bit color at work (Windows XP), 1024 x 768 x 16-bit color at home. For some reason OS/2 will not do 1152 x 864 even if your video card can do it. I might be able to get 1280 x 1024, but I don't think I'll get a refresh rate much better than 60 Hz. I get my 1024 x 768 at home refreshed at 85 Hz (on a 17" monitor), and it's reasonable.

[Thumper]

If you are running a pc try these settings: 1024x768, 78 Hz.

Also not to nit pick it is 15.8 viewable.

If that doesn't work update the drivers for you videocard. If that doesn't work your monitor might be telling you to buy a replacement. :wink:

Thanks for the info tuffel. I remeasured my screen and I'll buy the 15.8 spec. (Although when a switched to the higher resolution, the entire screensize shrunk down a bit so there was a thin black frame all the way aroung my desktop).

I work for state gov't and if tried to update my video drivers I'd be immediately apprehended by the IT police. We're running '95 on 8 year old Dell 233's. It's a wonder I can even send e-mail. We're due to upgrade this year. (Oooh, ooh maybe a 20" flat screen!, Don't count on it)

[Argos]

Well you guys made me feel like a dork for having 600x800 on a 15.5 (actual)" monitor.

The cost/benefit ratio of a 17" most is the best one. The difference in the price compared to a 15" is neglectable. I really canīt understand why they still manufacture 15`s.

BTW, mine is a Phillips 107S, 1024 x 768.