What resolution(s) do you run your monitor(s) at? (1 Viewer)

[nolesrule]

1024x768 or 1152x864 on my 17".

That said, you should definitely design for 800x600, or else you will cut out a large portion of your users.

Of course, WebTV does no greater than 640x480.

 

[Clinton McClure]

1024x768 @ 85Hz on a 16" Samsung SyncMaster 753DF.

 

[Andy Olivera]

1024x768 @ 100Hz on a 19" NEC

You don't necessarily have to design for a specific resolution. When creating frames and tables use percentages rather than static values(width=80%, instead of width=640). That way, the browser formats the page based on the users current resolution.

I would do my designing at 800x600. 1024x768 is pretty common, too, but I wouldn't go any higher. Just remember: variable width is the way to go(vertical scrollbars are expected)...

 

[John Thomas]

1600x1200 @ 85hz. I think it can do a higer refresh rate but I'm not sure. Would attempting it actually cook it, like I'm warned it will? (Viewsonic 21")

 

[Kelley_B]

Eek! 1600x1200 on a 17 incher??

 

[JoshF]

As far as web design best practices go, I think it's still best to design for 800x600 as your lowest common denominator. I've stopped worrying about IE4 and Netscape 4 compatability as well.

I just wish my clients would agree about forgetting Netscape 4. They always want to test for it. Ugh.

 

[DaveF]

Eek! 1600x1200 on a 17 incher??

Like I said, use large fonts, large icons and a few tweaks of colors and such, and it looks better than 1024x768 on a 17" monitor.
The higher the pixel density (pixels/area), the smoother fonts are, and the easier it is to read.

 

[Jorma]

1280x1024, 32bit with just 85hz as my old-good Hitachi CM752ET doesn't give more Hz.

 

[Kami]

The amount of people on this forum running 1280x1024 as opposed to 1280x960 puzzles me. After all, all of us are pretty fierce OAR supporters, but the whole time you guys running 1280x1024 are distorting every image on your screen since it's not the same ratio as all the common resolutions :p)
800x600
1024x768
1152x864
1280x960
1600x1200
All the same aspect ratio... 1280x1024 is not!
Multiply the width by 0.75 and you will get the proper height.
OK, so it's not that big of a deal...just one of my little pet peeves.
Anyway, I run 1280x960x32 @ 85hz on my 19" Samsung.

 

[Benny G]

A second vote for 1152x864. (I was hoping I'd be the first! )

 

[Mark Larson]

1280x1024 works for me because it doesn't appear stretched to me, and i like to have the extra few pixels of vertical space. I know it is 5:4, but if i can't see the difference, it doesn't bother me.
I've tried 1280x960 too, quite a few times, but don't see the point.

 

[VinhT]

800x600 @ 120Hz on a 19" CRT. It's very easy on the eyes.

 

[Mike Sogge]

1280x1024 on 17" LCD
1024x768 on 17" CRT
Anything higher and my eyes start to do crazy things.

The amount of people on this forum running 1280x1024 as opposed to 1280x960 puzzles me. After all, all of us are pretty fierce OAR supporters, but the whole time you guys running 1280x1024 are distorting every image on your screen since it's not the same ratio as all the common resolutions

Computer monitor resolutions don't act in the way you are thinking. Here's a simple thing for you to try:

• Create a simple white box w/ a black outline around the edge (something like 600x600 would work)
• (optional) Set that image as your background - make sure Windows doesn't want to stretch it to fit your screen size
• Set your screen to something like 1024x768, and note the amount of space around the image as well as the shape of the box.
• Set your screen to 1280x1024, and again note the space and shape

You should find that the box is not distorted.

 

[Todd H]

Yep, 1280x1024 on a 19" monitor for me as well.

 

[DaveF]

After all, all of us are pretty fierce OAR supporters, but the whole time you guys running 1280x1024 are distorting every image on your screen

Computer GUIs don't have an "OAR". There's no concern about "artistic integrity" with how MS Word appears.
It's irrelevant; the aspect ratio of the physical screen is constant. And if you're really anal, you can just resize your windows to achieve your desired aspect ration.
But again, I say

 

[Ken Chan]

You should find that the box is not distorted.

If you're using a CRT, I suppose that would depend on whether there is a preset for the mode, and whether that is done correctly. If not, you can always adjust it so that is correct (or wrong, you can fiddle quite a bit).

And it's not about OAR or artistic integrity (or resizing the windows), it's about circles being circles instead of ovals, and squares being square instead of rectangles.

Of course, most people probably don't measure the presets for the 4:3 modes and/or when they adjust the monitor to fill as much of the screen as possible without distortion (I don't). But when you know 1280x1024 is definitely not 4:3, you might be more inclined to.

Does anyone have a 1280x1024 LCD? (Do they make them?) Is the screen 4:3? If so, are the squares square?

//Ken

 

[MichaelG]

1024x768x32 @60hz with TV connected for watching movies.
1280x960x32 @85hz (switched to this from 1280x1024)

19" Dell M991 Monitor

 

[MikeM]

1280x1024 on a 19" CRT display
1280x1024 on a 17" LCD display
I love a two monitor setup.

 

[John Thomas]

I suppose in addition to the 1600x1200 on the 21" I could add 1024x768 on the 15" to it's right. Dual monitor works good in certain circumstances.

 

[DeepakJR]

1152x864 on Sony Trinitron 17" Monitor. I wish i had a 19" sp bad so i could run at 1280x1024 w/out squinting my eyes.

l8rz,
Deepak Jr.