21–30 of 122 posts
You can take a look at their sample size per country here: http://gs.statcounter.com/sample-size/StatCounterGlobalStats...
"...(*excluding mobile)" Why exclude mobile?
I'm not surprised. Only the "high end" laptops have a resolution that's not 1366x768 in Romania. I used to have a 14" Dell with a 1600×1200 resolution back in 2008. But in 2012 you really have to pay extra for something like that. 15.6 inch and 1366x768 is just incredible considering the 4 inch iPhone is 960x640 nowadays.
14" 1920x1200 here....laptop is from like 2008 (c2d Dell Latitude D830.) I won't upgrade because the "upgrade" has 1920x1080, and being a Sysadmin, vertical pixels lost means less lines in my term and more scrolling. It's a shame that we moved from 16x10 to 16x9 to save a few bucks. Last I checked, Apple and levovo (w-series) still offer 1920x1200, but my laptop cos $280 used, and the lenovo or MBP would be close to…
What about tablets? How does the iPad's 2048 x 1536 resolution work out in the real world? I assume web sites don't appear in a 1:1 pixel ratio, or a 960 pixel wide site would appear tiny in the browser. I use the 960 grid from http://960.gs/ when I build a site, and I find that sites on my 1680 x 1050 monitor look great at 960 pixels wide. I would assume that sticking with a 960 pixel wide grid is still optimal, but…
So does that mean that everybody's on a 13" macbook?
Sad that our pixel density hasn't gone up since the 90s, really. Tv ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. I'm glad to see that Apple is showing people that pixel density matters more than resolution alone, and I await their high-density MacBook displays. Hopefully they'll be out this fall, but a quick survey of the 4K-rezo landscape suggests that they'll likely have to wait another year for prices to drop :/
Sad that our pixel density hasn't gone up since the 90s, really. Tv ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. I'm glad to see that Apple is showing people that pixel density matters more than resolution alone, and I await their high-density MacBook displays. Hopefully they'll be out this fall, but a quick survey of the 4K-rezo landscape suggests that they'll likely have to wait another year for prices to drop :/
16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.)
16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.
1024x768 is still the best window-size for browsing (and most other tasks as well) in my opinion. Don't get any silly ideas of designing a web page for wider than 1024 pixels (the only thing I miss out today is in the "worst" case ads).
Do you think there's anything wrong with fitting the essential information within 1024 pixels, but then putting non-essential stuff to the right of that?
Sad that our pixel density hasn't gone up since the 90s, really. Tv ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. I'm glad to see that Apple is showing people that pixel density matters more than resolution alone, and I await their high-density MacBook displays. Hopefully they'll be out this fall, but a quick survey of the 4K-rezo landscape suggests that they'll likely have to wait another year for prices to drop :/
I don't care so much about pixel density; it's the ratio that bothers me. 16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.) 16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.
I have two 1650x1050 displays side-by-side (so, twice as a wide as "ridiculous"), and I run three 80-char width terminals or two web browsers side by side per display, using xmonad. I like it.
1024x768 is still the best window-size for browsing (and most other tasks as well) in my opinion. Don't get any silly ideas of designing a web page for wider than 1024 pixels (the only thing I miss out today is in the "worst" case ads).
"Don't get any silly ideas of designing a web page for wider than 1024 pixels" Do you think there's anything wrong with fitting the essential information within 1024 pixels, but then putting non-essential stuff to the right of that?
If its a site I regularly visit that is not a problem though, but what is non-essential to you might be essential to me so I'd be happy if there were small duplicate links in the footer or something.
I guess it depends, but in general anything besides ads further than 1024 pixels to the right annoys me.