Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

640x480 v 800x600

  • 09-08-2000 3:42pm
    #1
    PJ Hunt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 93 ✭✭


    It seems nowadays that 800x600 is becoming the standard res for most sites...

    But every time I walk into someones house they are running 640x480..simply because when windoz installs it defaults to that...

    I still think the vast majority of users dont have a clue about res or browser issues...and I'm finding more and more that these people are being turned off by the advances we all love...

    The success of the Pentium shows us that backward compatibility is a must for this field and I'm wondering if webmasters should look along the same lines.....

    Or at least give people an option they'll understand....
    ‡PJ‡


Comments

  • #2
    Bard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Bard


    You make some good points. It's *almost* a pity that there's no real reliable way of detecting the users resolution with a bit of scripting. We have to take into account as well that people may not use their browsers maximised though. Personally, I use a res of 1152x864 for windows on a large monitor and *usually* have the browser either maximised or set to 800x600. If the monitor was any smaller, I'd be viewing windows in a lower res. I wouldn't specifically design for 640x480 any more though.
    Bard

    |home page|scary éire


  • #3
    Kali
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,601 ✭✭✭Kali


    would you still design for 256 colors?
    i know i wouldnt anyway,
    absolutely no point in designing anything based around 640x480.. you maximise that in 1024x768+ and it will look absolutely tiny..
    even 800x600 looks awful :/


  • #4
    Bard
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,309 ✭✭✭✭Bard


    No, I wouldn't specifically design *for* 256 colours, but I'd try, at the same time, to ensure that the site is still "ok", - i.e. doesn't look bloody awful in 256 colours.
    Bard
    |home page


  • #5
    Shiminay
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 28,633 Mod ✭✭✭✭Shiminay


    I consider my stuff running at a minimum of 800X600 (my current res @ work is 1280X1024) and colors? I suppose 65K minimum.

    If someone is using 640X480 and 256 colours when they could be using much better, then they're an idiot and I really don't care about them. There is no excuse for owning a PC and not knowing how to use it in this day and age. There are too many cheap courses and book available for all that.

    Anyway, getting back on track, for the last 2 years, 17" monitors are the standard issue with a new PC and all will go to 1024X768 without problems. I mostly think of that when working. The great thing about Dreamweaver is it'll let you preview pages in all sorts of resolutions etc.


    All the best,

    Dav
    @B^)
    My page of stuff


Advertisement