How many people are still using Low Res Monitors in the country?

Jazzy

After hearing the complaints of certain marketing managers towards a site I know of about the optimal resolution for it, I was wondering how many people around the country are still using lower resolutions such as 640 x 480 and 800 x 600.

Are resolutions of this size still commonplace in this country or would it be in the minority?

dmeehan

I'd say the majority of "non-technical" people leave the resolution at whatever setting its at when they get the pc.

SeanW

Not many non-techies post here, and they're the ones less likely to even consider their screen resolution.

I'm probably one of the few on here running less than 1280 * 1024 / 1400 * 900

If I had to guess which was the most common, I would say 1024 x 768 but it may be higher. I highly doubt that theres anyone in the first world, other than legacy machines still using 640 * 480.

Lump

1280 * 1024 here, Dual Monitors too.

shoutman

Because of poker I have my main monitor at 1600 X 1200 and then my secondary monitor (my laptop) is at whatever it was at the start I think its 1280*1024.

AlmightyCushion

I'm using 1440x900 on my laptop and 1280x1024 on my desktop. In the place I was working in during the summer we had all out applications work with 1024x768.

watty

My laptop is 1600x1200, sometimes I add a 2nd extended screen to get 3200x1200 desktop.

BUT....
Portable devices are 320x240, (We have 5 that can use Networking), 920x240, 640x480, 800x480

Webpages should not be designed restrictively like printed documents. I like to use the desktop* metaphor on my hires. I hardly ever run things full screen. I run Acrobat about 800x1200 and Webbrowser about 600 to 1200 wide and 600 to 1200 tall.



*You don't use documents the full size of a desk.

dazftw

2560X1600 baby!!

Believe me if you had a 30" monitor your life would never be the same again it adds a whole new meaning to using a computer!

still_raining

Up on 1280 x 800. And stuck there. Mr 2560x1600...i just came

Stephen

1680x1050 myself, but you'd be surprised how many awful office PCs there still are out there running 800x600. Then you've also got people with ultracompact laptops and mobile devices with tiny screens too.

Shiny

1920x1200 here but i never run an application full screen unless its
photoshop,lightroom or gaming.

Normally I have a window about 1400x1000 with all the widgets,
winamp, bitmeter, object dock filling up the rest of the screen.

layke

Propper programmers use php coding to simply reajust to the resolution of the monitor.
The days of optimum resolutions for a site are well over.

RoyalMarine

1920 x 1200 on my laptop.

desktop with 2 32" plasma's are at 2560X1600

but one plasma is usually on tv/xbox 360.

zilog_jones

1280x1024 on my good ol 19" Trinitron (7 years old at least) - none of this LCD shyte

I'd run games at the highest res. they run comfortably at, so it's usually 1024x768 for newer stuff, and 1600x1200 + highest AA/AF for old crap like CS 1.6, and thanks to the power of old technology no crappy interpolation is needed to make different resolutions - wow!

SeanW

1024*768 FTW!

My LCD monitor is about 4 years old now and it's native resolution is the sweet spot for most of my usage.

Like some of my older games that won't go any higher, and some newer games like FarCry and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. that appreciate not having to go higher than that on my 6800GS (which was beefy ... back in 2005?)

Even on those rare occasions when I'm forced to use a lower res, the resampling isn't too bad especially for video and gaming.

Speaking of which, I can play most DVDs and some Internet download videos at full screen nicely. No need to get sucked into the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray mess here.

I'm sure your ESB meter doesn't like your old monitor too much, ditto for your eyes looking at a flickering screen. It can also be a pain to move CRTs around when needed, cause they're so big, ugly, heavy and cumbersome. CRT is old school. Those and floppy disks are the two main things I don't miss about computing in the 90s.

Older LCDs FTW!

watty

I find ultra resolution LCD with matt screen nearly as good as paper for reading, but for video or photo editing there is still no Plasma or LCD than comes close to colour & shade accuracy of a decent CRT.

Put up a very pale pastel yellow and move your head and tell me LCD is OK for photo/print/video work!

I wonder will OLED live up to promise? Sadly some of them use whitish OLEDs and same coloured stripes as LCDs, they won't be as good efficency & colour as native RGB. But the blue OLED age much faster, so screen need recalibrated. I guess that's why Sony has gone for single type OLED with filter stripes.

zilog_jones

SED technology also sounds interesting, but like OLED it's taking forever to appear on the market. I still have yet to see a decent LED-backlit LCD screen - they are hella expensive though.

Speaking of which, I can play most DVDs and some Internet download videos at full screen nicely. No need to get sucked into the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray mess here.

I question "nicely". Black levels, contrast and brightness are too sucky on old/cheap LCD monitors for watching videos IMO.

I'm sure your ESB meter doesn't like your old monitor too much

95W (typical) is only about twice as much as the average 20" LCD (not comparing 19" LCDs as they generally can't do 1600x1200). Considering it cost me nothing (perfectly functional monitor was being thrown out in college) and has served a long life (therefore environmental impact from manufacturing is less significant), and it has its advantages, I am willing to pay this price.

ditto for your eyes looking at a flickering screen.

Granted 60Hz is pain, but I don't notice the flickering at 85Hz or higher. It can do 1280x1024 @ 85Hz, and 1024x768 @ 100Hz. Reading blurry text on an LCD monitor when not using its native resolution (for whatever reason) also hurts.

It can also be a pain to move CRTs around when needed, cause they're so big, ugly, heavy and cumbersome.

Lifting 26kg of leaded glass, coils and junk is good excercise

Older LCDs FTW!

Trinitrons FTW!

Khannie

You're not gonna get a reasonable cross-section of the public on here. It'll be mostly those that know what the hell a resolution even is. I'd suggest posting this in after hours for a more representative view (but still slightly skewed towards the technical v's the entire population).

zilog_jones

Yeah I'd say there's still thousands in the country with an old Win95/98 PC who rarely/never go online.

mike65

Non techie running screen at 1024*768 on 19" cos I like to see the words.

Mike.

Dregon

Running 1024 x 768 on my 3 year old Dell 17".