SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

View Poll Results: Do you use the 800 x 600 resolution and if so, WHY?

Voters
152. You may not vote on this poll
  • No, I use a lower resolution because of my bad vision!

    1 0.66%
  • No, I use a higher resolution!

    94 61.84%
  • Yes, I use it, because I want to see what the crowd sees!

    30 19.74%
  • Yes, I always used it, cause I like it!

    20 13.16%
  • Yes... but why, I don't know!

    7 4.61%
Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 130
  1. #76
    SitePoint Member Stevewilliamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nhulunbuy NT
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree, the problem is that web design is going the same way as modern software or 'Bloatware' as modem speeds rise and computers get faster, people begin to get sloppy in their designing.

    They believe that because they have the latest gear, so should every one else.

    If a site relies on visual effects and has no content then you are adding to the junk pile of irrelevant information and new styles that inhabit the web, if your site is content driven, as the majority are now turning to, PHP, ASP, CGI etc, then design plays less of an issue and content rules.

    Art and design sites are fine, howver, who are they aimong at, if the design sites want all clients, then start looking at what every one wants. Even art sites can be designed so the first encounter is swift and to the point, then let people know that they are entering the bloat zone.

    The only thing that comes to mind, and I have always been taught is that if the info is not available within 20 seconds, maybe less, forget it.
    Steve Williamson
    Teknoledgi Pty Ltd
    www.teknoledgi.com.au

  2. #77
    SitePoint Zealot pony's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    170
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    hmm, yes, where's the "I use 800x600 because my monitor looks kack with anything higher" option?
    the bottoms of my shoes are clean from walking in the rain

  3. #78
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The only thing that comes to mind, and I have always been taught is that if the info is not available within 20 seconds, maybe less, forget it.
    Thats very forgiving. If it takes even remotely that long I almost always leave unless I believe it is worth while.
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  4. #79
    Tenacious T Tyhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Hilversum
    Posts
    651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Red face

    I'm 'Gone In 6 Seconds'.
    That's all folks...

  5. #80
    SitePoint Member Stevewilliamson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Nhulunbuy NT
    Posts
    14
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm 'Gone In 6 Seconds'


    sites designed for 1024 and higher can't get many visits from you then.

    Unless there blank, that is, most sites I visit take longer than that as they use every gimik going!

    Flash is quick nowadays, isn't it
    Steve Williamson
    Teknoledgi Pty Ltd
    www.teknoledgi.com.au

  6. #81
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I expect content to be up pretty quick, but if there are a few images still loading while i read, i don't really care

    I think 10secs on my 56k is more than enough...

  7. #82
    SitePoint Wizard iTec's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    2,243
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    im personaly quite forgiving on times, because i give each site about 30-40 seconds to load anyway, i dont browse with just one window, i quite often have 3-6 open, even just around the forums here.

  8. #83
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Michigan, USA
    Posts
    38
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I generally keep my 17" monitor at 1024x768, but I design for 800x600 since all of the traffic surveys I've seen say nearly 50% of people still use it.

    A lot of people I know (who aren't propeller-heads like) have 15" monitors, which generally translates to 800x600. Also, someone else menitoned their school had them. I think most business-owned and school-owned computers are still 15". My company, for instance, made 17" monitors the standard early this year. So all the new ones are 17's, but there are still tens of thousands of viable 15's in the field. And even in good economic times, we don't replace viable hardware just because there's something better. So 15's (and 800x600) will be around for a long time.

    As for load time, I've never really measured but I'd say around 10 seconds is a pretty fair amount of time for a page to load.
    Dave

  9. #84
    Non-Member Siltrince's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    304
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If i design a site for myself it will be at least 1024x768 but when making a website for a company i stiil make them for 640x480.

    I know that resolution is as dead as it can be , but a little piece of the peoples hasn't realised that yet .
    So still 640x480 for company websites.

  10. #85
    SitePoint Wizard geiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    17" screens usually hold a larger resolution. i think it's 1200. 15" is 1024. no question. and that's what I have- sadly ;(

  11. #86
    SitePoint Guru
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Long Island, NY
    Posts
    755
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Most 17 inch monitors will go more than 1200, but that doesn't mean you can see anything that small. I have one set for 1024, but it's a strain. The other, which is used by my whole family is set for 800x600.

  12. #87
    SitePoint Wizard geiger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Posts
    2,459
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    well, yes. but i think the actual capacity of a 17" without distortion is 1200. as a 15" is 1024. of course you can go bigger, but then you start letting the monitor show you a 3 pixel line where it really should be 4 pixels.

  13. #88
    SitePoint Guru nagrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Western CT, USA
    Posts
    803
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    monitors with lower dot pitches do better at hiher reses (thas why they're more expensive)
    but yar, you're still right about the 3-4 line thing, theres only so many little light-up dots to go around

  14. #89
    SitePoint Wizard Aes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Oklahoma
    Posts
    3,392
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by nagrom
    ... theres only so many little light-up dots to go around
    "light-up dots." I love it!
    Colin Anderson
    Ambition is a poor excuse for those without
    sense enough to be lazy.

  15. #90
    + platinum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Adelaide, Australia
    Posts
    6,441
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My 17" goes up to 1280 x 1024 pixels no probs... but my old graphics card doesn't like that res so I keep it at 1024 x 768

  16. #91
    <? echo "Kick me"; ?> petesmc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Hong Kong
    Posts
    1,508
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I personally think you should design for the user group that will be visiting your site. Example: If you are a search engine, then you want to design for everything basically, and if you are a webmaster site you design for 800 * 600 upwards like me. Here are the statistics from Webtrendslive for my site:

    1. 1600x1200 2.20%

    2. 1280x1024 9.67%

    3. 1152x864 6.59%

    4. 1024x768 44.60%

    5. 800x600 31.88%

    6. 640x480 1.63%

    7. Other Non-Standard Resolutions 3.45%

    As you can see, for webmaster sites, and possibly hardware/warez sites higher resolutions are going to be much more popular, more people use 1600 * 1200 on my site, which usually isn't seen. More importantly, is the format of the site, like forums:

    1. 1600x1200 4.51%

    2. 1280x1024 8.93%

    3. 1152x864 6.43%

    4. 1024x768 52.34%

    5. 800x600 22.81%

    6. 640x480 0.24%

    7. Other Non-Standard Resolutions 4.73%


    Big Difference! Basically, you should research the resolution uses of people who browse similar sites to find the best one for you.

    -Peter

  17. #92
    Say WHA?! goober's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    United States
    Posts
    1,921
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Also, if you design for computer professionals, the target is usually 1024x768.

    Keep in mind that polls about general computer users aren't the best idea to put on sitepoint. We don't represent all computer users, to if you ask what resolution, you'll most likely get 1024x768 or above.
    Sean Killeen [LinkedIn] [Twitter] [Web]

    Warning: Reality.sys corrupted. Universe halted. Reboot? (Y/N)

  18. #93
    SitePoint Member labyrinth37's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    10
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    When I got my first computer, I used 800 x 600. I didn't even know what resolution WAS, let alone how to change it.
    When I bought a 17 in monitor, I used 1024 x 768 - it seemed i could get so much more on my screen.
    When I bought a 19 in monitor, I starting using 1280 x 1024, and would never go back.

    However, I have read the stats too, and I know my ex wife, my fiance', and my sister (all females you'll note!) still use 800 x 600...so, when I am designing a page, I use a window that is set to 800 x 600 size, and just make sure everything I do fits within that parameter.

    I think there are just too many people stuck in the lower res, that we can't over-ride the masses and impose our own personal preferences on them...

    Independence is the privilege of a mature mind...not a toy for children to play with.

  19. #94
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Earth
    Posts
    133
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Cool

    I thought I would add my input on this. I have a 15" monitor. I am forced to use 800 x 600 because for some reason when I tried to use 1024 X 640? it messed up my screen. So, I am forced to use 800 X 600 when I surf the net. I would prefer 1024 X 640 or whatever that is because on some sites I wouldn't have to scroll. Now, my dad has a 19" monitor (which actually belongs to the computer I use....long story) and its a little bit annoying in the big resolution.

    Now some people might use 800 x 600 because they are new to their computer and don't know how to change the resolution or they might be forced to use it. I for one prefer the slightly bigger resolution just to decrease the scrolling I have to do.

    My dad is getting me a new monitor, but I told him I don't want a huge 19" monitor. I found it hurts my eyes.

    I think it probably depends on the individual.

  20. #95
    will code HTML for food Michel V's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Corsica
    Posts
    552
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I used to do 1280 on my 17", but got back to 1152 because it's more comfortable.
    However, I surf with 800x600 windows, because even if my res is high, there's no way a browser is getting all the screen estate.

  21. #96
    Tenacious T Tyhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Hilversum
    Posts
    651
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't think that 6 seconds is a short period to give to a website, especially if you are using a cable to surf the net, which I use.

    I personally have my screen set to 1280 on a 17" monitor and loving every inch of it!

    Greetz.
    That's all folks...

  22. #97
    Non-Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    18
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    good questionare. so we know higher solution is popular now. but I still like 800x600

  23. #98
    What? Maelstrom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Whistler BC originally from Guelph Ontario
    Posts
    2,175
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Originally posted by RichardJan
    good questionare. so we know higher solution is popular now. but I still like 800x600
    Among developers anyways.
    Maelstrom Personal - Apparition Visions
    Development - PhP || Mysql || Zend || Devshed
    Unix - FreeBSD || FreeBsdForums || Man Pages
    They made me a sitepoint Mentor - Feel free to PM me or Email me and I will see if I can help.

  24. #99
    SitePoint Enthusiast idoogleceo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    a cardboard unix box
    Posts
    96
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    We still use it here in our offices. As a matter of fact, almost all but the manager's control PC's are 800x600

    Our stats also show that 800x600 is a majority among the net surfers, and although I'm not really familiar with anyone personally (outside of our office) that use it...I'm not really concerned about those that I'm familiar with...they already visit the site, simply because I we're friends. I'm concerned about the ones I don't know. Those are the ones that can make or break a website.
    AvidNewMedia - Premium NAC bandwidth
    [Shared Solutions] [Private Label Reseller Solutions] [Dedicated Solutions]
    Instant Account Setup! Signup Today!

  25. #100
    SitePoint Enthusiast
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    50
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't plan on designing for more than 800x600 until everyone has a 19" or bigger monitor. But I wouldn't bet on that happening anytime soon, as many people don't have the physical space for a giant computer screen. Of course, a big LCD monitor would work great, but that option won't be viable for at least a year or so.

    Regardless, you should design your sites to be as cross-resolution compatible as they are cross-browser compatible.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •