I'm trying to set up a site.  To host among other things some of my projects.  Unfortunately I can't figure out how to elimate fixed width frames SO - I've come up with a reasonable work around.  

Based on some research apparently 20% of people are still using 800 x 600 resolution (how they can deal with this is beyond me).  I've asked around to some personal friends and the lowest of them is 1024 x 768.   

As my work is directed mainly towards artsy types and possibly those who might view from my link here - Im curious to know what the majority of people here use.

Thanks in advance, the more to respond the merrier!!!!!!!!!!!!!

1280 x 1024 - two of 'em, side by side.

1280 x 1024

1680 x 1054  with a 22" wide screen LCD Monitor

1680 x 1050, plus 1280 x 1024

1680X1050 and 1280X1024 ..... I also tend to work at a higher res, but for general stuff, that's where I sit, usually. Lou.

1280x1024 - 17inch flatscreen.

At work I have a CRT monitor and use 1024x768. I think as more people go onto flatscreen, resolution will continue to increase.

On my laptop 1024768, on my main computer 2 1280 *1024.

Another 1280x1024 here.

1024 x 768

Like Karen - 1280 x 1024 on a 19 " Flat Screen. 

This would give you a better idea:

http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm
scroll down to resolution trends

Also I would recommend using CSS instead of frames. Frames make a site difficult for search engines to index.

good luck,

FlyerX

1680x1050 on my 22" Samsung TFT and 1280x1024 on my 19" Acer.

1024 x 768

3840x1024

oh ok.

thats my Desktop that spans 3 17" Samsung LCD's at 1280x1024 each

1440 x 900. It's a widescreen LCD.

First of all THANKS for all the responses so far!!!!

""Also I would recommend using CSS instead of frames. Frames make a site difficult for search engines to index.

good luck,""

Yah : /  I know one is better than the other.  Problem is I don't know the difference yet.  The only real way for me to learn is hands on - so hopefully I will get there soon.  Right now I just got a program to help design - then I go and look at the html it creates - see if I can make any sense of it.

Most likely Ill be the main person using it anyway.  My back up and its back up crashed this week (yeah QQ) so my super idea was to get some hosting with large storage space for a back up to my back ups back up..... Figure while Im at it I can add some of my work there as well.

Thank you for the well wishes!

When designing a website instead of setting a fixed pixel width you can set it as a %.
For example my website has tables. If I have 1024 Pixels wide and 3 columns I could set each column at a fixed Pixel width of 341 minus the width of any borders. But it would always be 1024 even if someone was on 800 pixel wide.

I set each column as 33% wide and it will adjust to the users screen resolution.

What Mystic-Nights said.  I always use percentages rather than fixed width so that it will automatically adjust to the user's resolution.

I use percentages as well. I even like to to write in 2/3rds from the left edge, 1/3rd from the top, etc.

I purchased Web Easy Pro 6 yesterday.  Was good price, and Top Ten rated it as the best.  I sent an email about this issue to technical support today - they say "I'm sorry Web Easy does not support dynamic resizing"  -   So working on getting my refund now, as - if it is a "pro" version you'd think you would be able to make better websites with it than you can with myspace..... dotdotdot (for emphasis).   Yes I'm very frustrated at this point.

Anyway now I'm looking at Adobe GoLive.  I'm very familiar with photoshop so hoping that will help me use that program.  Of course here's to hopin that it "supports dynamic resizing"  because not one single software program out of hundreds (it seems) that I have looked at for this, specify whether or not this feature is included.

It will be nice when I learn enough to just take off the training wheels eh.

buy the HTML bible and do it in notepad* that way you have total control over what the code looks like and what it does :)

oh and my res is 1440x900 on a 19" widescreen LCD

(*insert editor of choice here)

Creating and maintaining a good dynamic website isn't something you will learn overnight, nor is there really any program that will do that for you. There is a lot of scripting involved (sometimes). Just like anything else there is a signicant learning curve. I personally use Flash. I understand and can make it do pretty much what I want...but it took me a good year to really get a handle on it. But understand it wasn't the only thing I was doing at the time...I have lots of hobbies that strain for my attention...so the learning may be less for you (???).

2048x1536 + 1280x1024.

Try to get that with a pair of LCD monitors (and for under $5000!). ;)

Looks like I'm alone with 1280 x 768 (widescreen laptop).

Incidentally, many of the images in my gallery are the same dimensions, as the majority are a result of becoming bored with my Wallpaper! :)

Notepad for coding can be a pain to the eyes and nerves if it more the na few kB.

For syntac highlighing and some other features try Eclipse or Ultraedit. The first is Open Source and not restricted to markup and script languages, the latter will cost some 50 bucks.

Odd, I guess I am just the other wierd one (hi Clawshrimp): 1600 x 1200 on a 20".

1280 x 1024 or 1024 x 1280, depending on which way I have my screen pivoted. Coldrake

1280 x 1024 at home, 1600 x 1200 at work, but: The actual window space usable for your site will vary according to the type of browser, what toolbars the user has added and so on. Hardly anyone will have their browser window maximised; you'll never get the full screen resolution to play with. The gallery on my site is mostly 800 x 600 images, although I sometimes give a link to a larger version.

Here are some stats for you from my site. Hope they help.

1440x900 (laptop)
1920x1200 (24" widescreen)
1280x1024 (2x)

and on my server 1024x768 on an old CRT. Not used for browsing

When it comes to free editors, you can also download Visual Studio 2005 Express Web Developer from Microsoft. Supports CSS, syntax highlighting, browser previews and so on. While its primary purpose is building ASP.NET web sites, you don't HAVE to use ASP.NET for your site. Good support for writing JavaScript too (just be careful to avoid the "Microsoft only" parts of JScript)

1200 x1024 on a 17" LCD, 1200x 1024 on a 21" CRT.

About the web site tools: GoLive is excellent (my copy is three revs old, though), but I recommend getting started with something free, like NVU (Google it for their web site). It's WYSIWIG, Dreamweaver-like I'm told.

The best books I've encountered on CSS are Eric Meyer's lab book CSS Web Site Design Hands on Training, Molly Holzschlag's Spring into HTML and CSS, Liz Castro's Peachpit book on HTML and CSS, and CSS: The Missing Manual.

All four preach the same basic message: Start with CSS and you won't regret it. I'm in the process of updating a web site with pages up to ten years old, all built with devilishly clever tables and even (shudder) frames. The alternative build is simple, using CSS floats, but fixing the old stuff is like putting a Porsche engine in a Honda. Holzschlag and Castro are the most readable, Missing Manual the most comprehensive, and Meyer the best for fast and accurate, if you can keep up with him.

Fluid vs Fixed is not a good guys/bad guys thing. There are great arguments on both sides. If you know what size your readers are most comfortable with, fixed in that size is fine. If you go fluid, you run the risk of having the usability of the site hampered by small/large windows. Text should not extend more than 60-70 characters, or less than 20. And your graphics should be the size they should be, not the size the MSPorthole allows. My prejudice: I loathe pure fluid, mainly because it is implemented ineptly. Done right, fluid requires minimum and maximum settings, complex interactions of DIVs, SPANs, images and fonts, and a mixture of width types: very complicated, and barely worth the trouble unless you have something to prove.

According my two months of Google analytics, by the way, only 10% of my visitors (and I am not a high tech or art site) are dialup, and less than 10% have 800x600 or less. If you are selling then that 10% is a market share to keep. Otherwise, I'd go (as I have) with the size comfortable to the 90%. After all, the 800x600 folks can always scroll a bit; it's not like they are shut out.

M

1600 x 1200 I've read good reviews of MS Expression Web, especially with CSS and theres a 60 day trial available.

Expression is getting good reviews, but that is the job of the press, to shilll for the Ubermensch. It costs considerably more than it's worth, and the web designer mags are giving it pretty tepid reviews for web standards and compatibility. Face it, a company that wants to rule the universe is not going to abandon its sociopathy for a fit of community-consciousness.

Web Ex has MS-only features built in. That's enough to cross it off any list of mine. I don't even care what they are. I don't go to restaurants owned by drug dealers, either.

M

www.w3schools.com has CSS tutorials that can get you started. Maybe not the best around, but it's free.
The site also covers JavaScript and XHTM, plus XML and server side scripting in several languages.

You can get a site up and running with nothing but CSS and HTML. That's the true basics. Javascript, Flash, XML, DHTML, AJAX, SSI and so forth are chrome. Nice chrome, mind you, but if you just want to get started, then all you need is comfiness with the basics. You can add the chrome later, but if you skip CSS, you will regret it, and if you skip HTML (with a "here, let me do that for you" app), you will be at the mercy of the person who designed the software. And if he worked for MS Brother, expect none.

I'm a book person, so the online tuts don't cut it for me. You will also find pretty good training and templates in the freeware versions of some low-end HTML editors, like Arachnophilia and AceHTML. But a used copy of Molly S's book will only set you back $15 (what I paid for one at Powell's), and it's worth every penny. Molly is now a consultant w/MS on web standards, so who knows, maybe Ted Bundy ain't bad, once you get to know him.

Another easy buy is Practical Web Design, a Brit magazine that always has a lot more than the cover price in CD goodies, practical tutorials, and great Q&A (Molly S turns up again). I read each issue in my local lending library (Borders), and almost always end up buying it for at least one good article and one useful software item. The British media generally seems to have not given up, like American media, on human literacy. It's nice to find magazines that actually expect us to read, think about, and enjoy the text, rather than just drool on the pictures and buy whatever they are shilling.

M

I definitely recommend using XHTML instead of vanilla HTML. XHTML is currently the recommended W3C standard.
Its main advantage is that XHTML syntax conforms to the XML standards, which makes it stricter. By the way, XHTML requires the use of CSS. It's not optional as in HTML 4.0.

I have used Dreamweaver MX, and frankly, I'm not impressed. The HTML it generates is quite clunky. And don't get me started on the quality of the scripts it generates - lousy is too generous a word. If you're going to use script, either client-side or server-side, create it yourself. Generated scripts are trying to cover each and every situation, which results in an incredible amount of bloat.

1600x1200 myself. Of course I often browse in a smaller window on the desktop, partly because of all those fixed width pages.

SVDL --
I agree, regarding XHTML, but you can write strict HTML for it, and Molly explains the issues and solutions pretty clearly. I haven't picked up the newest editon of Liz Castro's book, but I'm guessing she handles the problem pretty well too. The sixth edition lists XHTML in the title. I'm talking about the real book, by the way (HTML, XHTML, and CSS, Sixth Edition (Visual Quickstart Guide), not Peachpit's "for Dummies" wannabe. 

For me, the big issue is finding a good teacher rather than getting the right flavor of markup. Molly and Castro are excellent teachers (I call her "Molly" because I never can remember how to spell "Holzschlag"...). Meyer's is a genius, but that means you have to run full out to keep up sometimes.

I agree regarding Dreamweaver, but that's a problem with ALL "Here, let's do it MY way" editors, including GoLive and, surely, WebExp. My suggestions are meant to strip the requirements down to bare essentials. I use Javascript, but I don't need it. I know some Java, some Flash, some PHP, a smidge of AJAX, but I can't find a use for them, so I don't bother. If JJRoland were interested in learning web development for its own sake, I'd be recommending a text editor (I use my orphaned copy of HomeSite 5.5 almost exclusively). NVU has the advantage of being WYSIWIG and free, and equipped with a codeview pane. If it had GoLive's hierarchical display, it would be, to my mind, the ideal editor, probably enough to get me to give up on HomeSite.

M

Wow!  Thanks Alot for all the helpful responses.  

I do need to get a book, I know : /.  I am one to use it as more of a reference though instead of going step by step through it.  The way I learn best is to usually just do it.  I find out in the process what I don't know or can't do then (this is where the book comes in) - look it up.  

I'd say right now Im in the glossary stage lol.  

Again thanks!

Quote - more of a reference though instead of going step by step through it.  The way I learn best is to usually just do it. 

I'd recommend a look at Molly Holzschlag's Spring Into book over teh Castro, then. And if you seriously want "nothing but a reference" (that's a bit bare bones for my taste), find a used O'Reilly Definitive Guide or Missing Manual. The CSS "missing manual" is a comprehensive reference, but it won't help you much with HTML or XHTML. So you end up with two books.

I thought of another route to consider: The Head First HTML book. It covers XHTML and CSS, and it's in a style so bloody cool it gives off fog. I can't decide if I like these books or not, but I keep being drawn back to them. Never actually finished one, though. The text is heavily graphic, sound-bitey and kitschy. When it's amusing, it's amusing; when it's not it's tiresome. The idea is to appeal to the aliterate (that's people who can read but won't). It's a market, and the books are, under the sappy grins and clown suits, very solid technically. They have a kind of charm -- enough so that I've bought three titles. But as I said, I've never finished one. It's a bit like trying to learn to surf during a hurricane.

M

1024 x 768, on a 21" CRT.   

Quote - Odd, I guess I am just the other wierd one (hi Clawshrimp): 1600 x 1200 on a 20".

Nope - 1600x1200 on a 25" NEC here (latched onto a Mac).  I got lots of desktop real estate to spread stuff around with a big rez... (used to have a 2nd monitor - a 15" Viewsonic LCD that ran at 1280x1024, but the apartment doesn't give me a whole lot of space to put the whole desk together for taht nowadays).

The new machine (when I manage to get it later this year) will have two monitors, hopefully 19" LCD's... each of which will likely have 1280x1024 (st00pid LCD resolution limitations...)

/P

20" 1600x1200 main monitor
18" 1280x1024 secondary monitor

My website is designed to be ok for 1024x768 resolution, but expand nicely for higher resolutions.  I get kind of annoyed with all these website with a small fixed width for people on low resolution monitors.  I'm always a big fan of options. :)

Mine's 1280x1024.  I'd really rather run it higher, but it was doing something funky with one of my apps...forget which one now. lol  Maybe some day I'll figure it out and try again.

1024 x 768

1680x1050 -- times two.

That's the native resolution on both of my dual-monitor widescreen LCD's.

I highly recommend them for 3D work.

1680x1050

1280 x 1024

Quote -   I get kind of annoyed with all these website with a small fixed width for people on low resolution monitors.  I'm always a big fan of options. :)

Grr.... don't get me started - I have been doing a lot of developing lately using  !Joomla as the CMS and lookng around for inspiration I get sick of seeing nearly every site with a fixed width of 750 or 800 - I just can't get my understanding around why people like all that unused real estate sitting on either side of their content.

I hate to bring this up, but all of you guys who are running 1280 x 1024 resolution know you are running a non-square resolution, right?

That assumes your monitor has the conventional (and industry standard) non-widescreen 4:3 ratio.

What?  What is Jim talking about?  

If your monitor's aspect ratio isn't matched by the pixel aspect ratio, the pixels aren't square.

So what, you say?  Well, an example of the problem this causes-  Your people are going to be fatter or thinner than intended (and the fat ones become thin when they go horizontal, and so on. 

Yeah, it is only about 6 1/2%, but I can notice it, and when they go horizontal the difference doubles, to 13%.  

So, if you have a 4:3 monitor and your graphic card can do it, 1280 x 960 is better than 1280 x 1024.  Unless you adjust the monitor's display width and height to match YOUR aspect ratio (but I always set that to max).

640 x 480, 800 x 600, 1024 x 768, 1280 x 960, 1600 x 1200, 1920 x 1440 are square ratios.

Just so you know.  ;-)  

Maybe Dr. Geep could explain this better...

Oh, I run 1280 x 960 x 2 monitors, effectively 2560 x 960, BTW.