Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

gs.statcounter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 122 posts

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#71

Post by Raphael »

OzzyB wrote: post #39
Alex3917 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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?

I agree with tjoff; just because a majority of users' screensizes are increasing, doesn't mean we have to keep "upping" the size of our webpages accordingly. I don't think the guy that just bought a brand-sparkling new 27" cinema display really wants all the websites he visits to now start filling his entire screen -- he bought it to do multiple things at once. Speaking from experience, I keep all my browsers at arou…

960 is also half of 1920, for side-by-side viewing, though I'd design a bit lower in case of window borders and scroll bars.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#72

Post by huggyface »

pkamb wrote: post #61
huggyface wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The users don't have a choice for the most part The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common. Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous…

But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this cha…

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3.

In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet.

I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right".

So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.

When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#73

Post by keithpeter »

lifeformed wrote: post #55
bo1024 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

16:9 is awesome if you use a wide, vertical taskbar.

Ubuntu Unity. 1920 by 1080 on a no-name LCD LED monitor. Launcher on left set to 32px. Browser in right half, terminal/Gedit in left half (use the shift-alt arrow key shortcuts to semi-tile).

Might consider a second 1920 by 1080 to get to 4 million pixels on the cheap

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#74

Post by RandallBrown »

huggyface wrote: post #72
pkamb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this cha…

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a bette…

I think a 4:3 screen is much better than 16:9 for a tablet, especially if you're holding it in portrait mode, which is usually how I try and hold a tablet. It's like a piece of paper. 4:3 is simply a better form factor (see what I did there). To each their own.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#76

Post by pkamb »

huggyface wrote: post #72
pkamb wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this cha…

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a bette…

Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9.

They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand.

From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market."

The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that 4:3 screens were easier for Apple to source for the iPad.

Or the claim that non-Apple tablet makers aren't simply choosing the cheaper and more common screen format. None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#77

Post by justinph »

thangalin wrote: post #67
slewis wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its true you should consider who your users are. But these numbers shouldn't be used to determine what size to make a website. I'd guess most people with 1920x1080 monitors don't maximize their browser.

For general websites, I preview the site using: http://browsersize.googlelabs.com/ Many web sites are not designed for people who retain older technology for financial (or other) reasons. Every web developer should befriend someone over the age of 60 and watch their surfing habits.

While this site is sort of useful for looking at screen size, it gives the false impression that users don't scroll. They do. Don't ever show this to anyone that isn't fully aware of this, else you'll fall into the trap of trying to put everything "above the fold", a terrible prison to escape.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#78

Post by oconnore »

reirob wrote: post #23
seanp2k2 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Absolutely agree that the loss of vertical space is frustrating and contra-productive.

Totally off topic: why did you use contra- versus counter-?

I have never seen that before.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#79

Post by huggyface »

pkamb wrote: post #76
huggyface wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a bette…

Computer/laptop monitors didn't switch directly from 4:3 -> 16:9. They moved from 4:3 -> 16:10 -> 16:9. And the switch to 16:9 happened because of panel cutting and cost, not because of consumer demand. From the link in my previous post, Lenovo could not keep using 4:3 screens because they had "all but disappeared from the market." The vast majority of netbooks released in the 2007-2010 range were widescreen, so I do…

None of the mass-produced Android tablets have the same form factor as the proven hit, 60+ million units sold iPad. Why?

Aside from some dirty cheap Archos 4:3 tablets (which were actually 4:3, and still dirt cheap, before Apple unveiled the mighty iPad), they don't because it isn't a benefit. Again you're drawing from the notion that Apple's choice is right and everyone else's is wrong, which is a pretty questionable starting point.

Regarding the cost-cutting, it absolutely was cost-cutting to move from 16:10 to 16:9, and few complained because really is it different enough for many to care? It was not cost cutting to move from 4:3 to 16:10 beyond that users demanded a wide screen overwhelmingly, not least because playing video on our desktop became so common.

Re: 1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

#80

Post by justinph »

bandy wrote: post #41
bo1024 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Depending on my task, I may rotate the 1920x1200 screen in front of me 90° to 1200x1920. I find that much more useful for reading large amounts of text and/or code. The underlying OS supports it, the monitor arm this display is mounted on supports it, yet everyone on the job was remarking simultaneously how odd it was and how useful it seemed as they were shoulder-surfing while I picked through a large code-base. A f…

Very useful indeed. I use a similar 1680 x 1050 rotated 90º (so it's 1050 x 1680) with a browser. When I'm doing frontend work and having a browser fullscreen gives plenty of room for the viewport and web inspector or firebug. It's a real productivity improver.
Post reply on HN