Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
More surfers choose 1024 x 768
onestat.com — More internet users choose for screen resolution 1024 x 768 which is the most popular screen resolution for exploring the internet. The resolution 1024 x 768 has reached an all time high and has risen from 54.02 percent in June 2004 to 57.38 percent. Users with monitors set to 800 x 600 have an approximate 18.23 percent global usage share.
rousehouse- 405 diggs
- digg it
- adjacentidea, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I personally use 1280 x 1024. But I'm wondering if this is due to most people's older monitors not supporting anything higher? Nah, probably not.
- rmal, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My laptop is 1024x768 which is really annoying, what I use most of the time is my workstation at work that has 1680x1050 which is really nice.
- paintist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0wow its risen a full 3 percent in a year! Shocking! How many think that could just be to a rise in 1024x768 monitors being sold?
- teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I prefer 1280x1024 but thats just me...
- Math-Sux, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I use an apple LCD set to the native 1680 x 1050 with my Mac. The extra real estate is awesome for apps like Photoshop, Quark, inDesign, etc. (all I use a Mac for is print design). My pc (which I do web work and everything else on) is set to 1024 x 768 because that's how I like it. At one time I was thinking about getting a another 20" LCD for the pc and plugged the apple display in to get a feel for the difference. 1680 x 1050 in windows drove me nuts! The native resolution is the only one that's usable - anything less looks blurry and literally gives me a headache. Yeah, I can adjust the windows interface to make things more readable, but I found it painful to use the internet. I can also bump the fonts in the browser, but more times than not at the expense of distorting websites. Video was another huge issue, those trailers on rottentomatoes.com became real hard to see. The sites I build are 'best viewed' at 1024 x 768, but I make sure there's no problems at 800 x 600 and don't look silly at much higher resolutions either. I think it's all personal preference, but those stats are important to me as a web development consideration.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -2/+11280x1024 is stupid for 4:3 monitors. it would render all of your pictures off ratio, squished down. as in a circle would be an oval, and a square a rectangle. 1280x960 is the proper 4:3 resolution.
- ajb2015, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0my laptop has a funky resolution 1280x768(i think), so anything with a 4:3 ratio is stupid looking, but for my desktop i use 1280x960. Old people always comment on how small everything is. they're so dumb.
- Mattrichards, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0mine is 1280 by 1024
is that weird - mattb19us, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11400 x 1050. The only way to go.
- evil-doer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+01280x1024 only makes sense on 5:4 monitors, which some laptops have.
(also a 1400x1050 man) - KYDS3K, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1good info to know for web designers . . .
- RpgActioN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1152x864.
- SilverRocket, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is more a story about monitors and laptops instead of actual screen resolutions - most people don't know crap about changing monitors, and use whatever the 'default' setting is. Also, laptops haven't had 800x600 resolution in years, so the statistics on that resolution are obviously dropping. Still, savvy webdesigners use XHTML and CSS to ensure complete readability (and design) regardless of resolution. All Hail CSS Zen Garden!
- MerlinTW, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1600x1200...
I never want to go back. - lionwilson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I've been using 10x7 for a long time, and I thought it was fine until two things happened... For one, I got a new laptop with a 1280x768 widescreen, and I loved the extra wideness of it while surfing and working in Photoshop and whatnot. Also, I just upgraded my video card, and I can run most games at full settings great, and I want to boost my resolution so I can get more out of the game, but my current LCD only supports up to 10x7. I've been looking into getting a good 12x10 LCD, but I don't know whether to invest the extra money for DVI. Anyone got a link to a good comparison between DVI and regular VGA, or have any personal experiences?
- Mongoose, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the only reason i use 1024 is because my POS moniter maxs out at it. :(
- SybotCB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have a 1600x1200 LCD monitor as well.
At work it's 1280x1024.
I agree. I don't understand why 1280x1024 ever became a resolution. It should have been 1280x960, and if you have a CRT monitor you need to change it. - Scatropolis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0My parents used 800x600 for the longest time until just recently they switched to 1024x768. I guess they got sick of me not changing it back....
1600x1200 for me though. - Bleek-II, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1152x864 on my main screen and 1024x768 on the second.
- mmph4n471c, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I use 1280x1024, 17" LCD. Better than the 1024x768 that I had before, since Photoshop demands a lot of room to work in...
- ah802, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm using 1280 X 720 HDTV default native on a 27" LCD widescreen, no aspect distortion and I have room for extras.
- suMMx, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0noobs, i rock 1920x1200
- rmf_mental, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have used 3200x1200 on 2 19in monitors for the last 3 years. My notebook runs at 1920x1200. I don't see how people can get anything done at those low resolutions.
- wonky73, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I've been at 1600x1200 for like 5 years now. I can't imagine there are people still at 1024x 768 let along smaller.
- volcompimp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This is due to the increase in laptop sales. I'm not sure what
most LCD's use but that could be part of it as well.
I was extremely ***** when I was shopping for my laptop earlier
in the year and every store I went to only carried xga and wxga lcd's
in their laptops, except for a few places that had high end HP laptops
with wsxga lcd's. I did the right thing and bought an Asus laptop
which was much cheaper than anything sold in stores and had an
Amd64 3000+, an Ati 9700 and an Sxga screen (1400x1050) all for $1100.
Got it cheap off a guy with a whole sale license. - BLASTOCYST, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0My 12" thin n' light notebook is a native WHUXGA -- 7680×4800 for you noobs (ahem, suMMx) out there.
- percyhanna, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I used to use 1600x1200 on a 19", but now I have a 21" Samsung running 1600x1200 also, much nicer. Better refresh rate. I also have my 17" PB beside it, so i have 1600x1200 + 1440x900.
Lots of fun. - cptpike, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I would love to use something above 1024 x 768, but I have terrible eyes. Anything bigger and I'm mr. squints.
- Ryokurin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Most people are buying 17 inch LCDs and CRTs now a days since they are usually under 250 for the no names. 1024 is fine on something that size but 1280 looks a little small on it however 1280 is just fine on a 19 inch.
- yakk0dotorg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I accidently chose the wrong laptop screen on my latitude d610, so I'm stuck at 1024x768. When docked it goes to 1600x1200, but I'd prefer that or 1400x1050 when it's undocked.
- TKDWILSON, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I have a 33 inch monitor I use most of the time. Unfortunally I got it from the trash so the resolution is only 800X600. I just couldnt beat the price.
Eric Wilson - lilgryph, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I guess we've found a new way to compare dick sizes.
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0wow hard to beleive people still use 1024x768....personally I use 1280x960....it's pretty balanced for gaming and the internet....when I get a lcd monitor 17" of course I will raise my resolution. lilgryph no need to use the d work on digg....there's enough tacky people like you already.
- Jammerdelray, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0a 12" laptop screen at 7680×4800?.....damn your glasses must look like coke bottles lmao
- BLASTOCYST, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0T'was a joke!
- sarasweet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01280x1024 on a 17", but my eyes are still young. Ever sit down at your parents or grandparents computer? My grandparents can't see anything on a resolution bigger than 800x600. I'm just glad they can actually use a computer to e-mail me, or I'd never talk to them!
- ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1What is evildoer talking about? I work everyday in 1280x1024 on my LCD monitors. They're not 5:4. All my pictures and artwork render perfectly.
I work in Photoshop, Painter and Maya all day long and nothing has ever ever looked "squished".
WTF dude... - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Most people that use low resolutions are doing so just because they're stuck with hardware they can't afford to upgrade or have no desire to upgrade. My mom's computer still has a 14" CRT. The convex shape of the glass screen makes me laugh - it's like watching someone browse the web on a fishbowl! But that's all she does; browse the web, check e-mail, and that's about it. For her to spend money upgrading her monitor would be a bit of a waste. 1024x768 is a pretty high resolution for such a small screen, so she just uses 800x600 with a small font size.
For me, 1600x1200 on a 21" screen. That's about as high as I'm willing to go (I like 1280x960 on 17" and 1280x1024 on 19"). - disord3r, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1ksgant: If your monitor is not a widescreen monitor, then the physical dimension of your monitor are 4:3. This means you should be using a screen resolution that is also 4:3. 1280x1024 is NOT 4:3 (4:3, or 4 divided by three is 1.33333, but 1280 divided by 1024 is 1.25), so if you use 1280x1024, things will be SLIGHTLY stretched horizontally. It may or may not be enough for you to notice, but the aspect ratio is not correct for the monitor.
1280 divided by 960 is 1.3333333. - ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0When I put this monitor at 1280x960 the type looks terrible and broken up...even after auto-adjusting it.
Dunno, manuals for these things say the native res should be 1280x1024. But I guess you guys know more than the people that built it.
Oh well... - ____, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0To the aspect-ratio naysayers: if you use a CRT you can usually adjust the stretching for any res if you want 1:1::x:y;
in the case of 1280x1024 versus 1280x960, you would lose space on the sides in correcting this to fit on a 4:3 display. You don't have to have a squished appearance unless you wanted to max out your active display area. - Qopax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0the physical dimension of your monitor is 5:4, and not 4:3 as disord3r said. Most 17" and 19" lcd's have a physical dimensions at 5:4, just like their resolution, so everything is in perfect proportions and isn't stretched or squished. gg
- Paiway, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I only get 60hz in 1280x1024, so I use 1024x768.
- hass, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I love my 20" 1680x1050 monitor. Wish I had the 24" 1920x1200 though.
- JAPAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I dont see why there isnt a precent for people using 1680x1050. Dell is pretty much giving them away now.
- matt.rubin, on 10/12/2007, -0/+01600X1200 baby
or on my notebook 1280 X 800 - psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I personally use 800 X 600
Tiny monitor + extreme near-sightedness (I qualify as legally blind)= 600 x 600 resolution.
Frankly, I wish I could afford a larger monitor. - IraqManiac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0how do they track this kind of stuff? do they just collect a bunch of n00bs with old computers and ask them what resolution they run at? I use 1280x1024 but I would use 1600x1200 if I had a 20" LCD instead of a crappy 19"
- ermau, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm actually using 1920x1200 on my windows box (someone mentioned that they couldn't stand widescreen on windows.) I can never go back, I love it. (Yes it's an Apple monitor BTW.)
- psyonide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0extreme near-sightedness also means more typos. :p
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by