Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL


Subject: Help me out! What is YOUR monitor Resolution?

jjroland opened this issue on Apr 19, 2007 · 56 posts


jjroland posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:24 PM

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!!!!!!!!!!!!!


I am:  aka Velocity3d 


spedler posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:26 PM

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

Steve


wheatpenny posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:26 PM Site Admin

1280 x 1024




Jeff

Renderosity Senior Moderator

Hablo español

Ich spreche Deutsch

Je parle français

Mi parolas Esperanton. Ĉu vi?





Acadia posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:28 PM

1680 x 1054  with a 22" wide screen LCD Monitor

"It is good to see ourselves as others see us. Try as we may, we are never
able to know ourselves fully as we are, especially the evil side of us.
This we can do only if we are not angry with our critics but will take in good
heart whatever they might have to say." - Ghandi



CraigMunden posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:28 PM

1680 x 1050, plus 1280 x 1024



archdruid posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:32 PM

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

"..... and that was when things got interestiing."


KarenJ posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:33 PM

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.


"you are terrifying
and strange and beautiful
something not everyone knows how to love." - Warsan Shire


bantha posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:39 PM

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


A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori


modus0 posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 3:49 PM

Another 1280x1024 here.

________________________________________________________________

If you're joking that's just cruel, but if you're being sarcastic, that's even worse.


Neyjour posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:12 PM

1024 x 768

"You don't know what we can see
Why don't you tell your dreams to me
Fantasy will set you free." - Steppenwolf


Victoria_Lee posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:12 PM

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

Hugz from Phoenix, USA

Victoria

Remember, sometimes the dragon wins. Correction: MOST times.


flyerx posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:18 PM

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


Arvanor posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:26 PM

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

If by my life or death I can protect you, I will!


ockham posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:34 PM

1024 x 768

My python page
My ShareCG freebies


Khai posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:34 PM

3840x1024

oh ok.

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


stormchaser posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 4:56 PM

1440 x 900. It's a widescreen LCD.



jjroland posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 5:04 PM

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!


I am:  aka Velocity3d 


Mystic-Nights posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 5:08 PM

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.


Victoria_Lee posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 5:23 PM

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

Hugz from Phoenix, USA

Victoria

Remember, sometimes the dragon wins. Correction: MOST times.


DarkEdge posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 6:01 PM

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

Comitted to excellence through art.


jjroland posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 7:35 PM

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.


I am:  aka Velocity3d 


FrankT posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 7:40 PM

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)

My Freebies
Buy stuff on RedBubble


DarkEdge posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 7:41 PM

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 (???).

Comitted to excellence through art.


kuroyume0161 posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 7:44 PM

2048x1536 + 1280x1024.

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

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone


ClawShrimp posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 8:12 PM

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! :)

If we can hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominos will fall like a house of cards...checkmate!


Zarat posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 8:28 PM

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.


pjz99 posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 8:34 PM

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

My Freebies


coldrake posted Thu, 19 April 2007 at 9:19 PM

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


EnglishBob posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 5:18 AM

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.


byAnton posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 6:16 AM

Hi there,

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

-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the face of truth is concealment."


Over 100,000 Downloads....


svdl posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 6:24 AM

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)

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff


mickmca posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 8:04 AM

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


Prikshatk posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 8:51 AM

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

regards
pk
www.planit3d.com


mickmca posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 8:58 AM

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


svdl posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 9:08 AM

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.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff


mickmca posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 9:31 AM

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


svdl posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 9:39 AM

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.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff


JohnRickardJR posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 9:55 AM

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


mickmca posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 10:01 AM

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


jjroland posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 10:19 AM

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!


I am:  aka Velocity3d 


mickmca posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 10:43 AM

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


lesbentley posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 4:22 PM

1024 x 768, on a 21" CRT.   


Penguinisto posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 5:38 PM

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


Giolon posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 6:05 PM

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. :)

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤


jwiest posted Fri, 20 April 2007 at 6:19 PM

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.

John


Ardiva posted Sat, 21 April 2007 at 12:27 AM

1024 x 768



XENOPHONZ posted Sat, 21 April 2007 at 1:23 AM

1680x1050 -- times two.

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

I highly recommend them for 3D work.

Something To Do At 3:00AM 



12rounds posted Sat, 21 April 2007 at 3:05 AM

1680x1050


odeathoflife posted Sun, 22 April 2007 at 1:40 PM

1280 x 1024

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net


 


tastiger posted Mon, 23 April 2007 at 3:35 PM

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.

The supreme irony of life is that hardly anyone gets out of it alive.
Robert A. Heinlein


11th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i9-11900K @ 3.50GHz   3.50 GHz
64.0 GB (63.9 GB usable)
Geforce RTX 3060 12 GB
Windows 11 Pro



Jim Burton posted Mon, 23 April 2007 at 5:40 PM

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.


odeathoflife posted Mon, 23 April 2007 at 6:00 PM

hmm just changed mine to 960 and it does look a little better :) thanks

♠Ω Poser eZine Ω♠
♠Ω Poser Free Stuff Ω♠
♠Ω My Homepage Ω♠

www.3rddimensiongraphics.net


 


svdl posted Thu, 26 April 2007 at 5:19 PM

1280x1024 can be a square resolution, depends on the monitor. Most LCD screens that have a native resolution of 1280x1024 have 5:4 proportions - which means square pixels.

The classic CRT proportions are 4:3, and in that case 1280x1024 delivers non-square pixels.

The viewing areas of my 19" LCD screens are 37.5 cm wide by 30 cm tall, which is a 5:4 ratio. So the 1280x1024 delivers square pixels.

The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter

My gallery   My freestuff


fls13 posted Thu, 26 April 2007 at 7:16 PM

My site stats have the most users coming in at 1024x768, a lot still at 800x600. It depends on who you expect to visit, artists or viewers. Artists would tend use use the higher resolutions.


coldrake posted Fri, 27 April 2007 at 7:37 PM

"Most LCD screens that have a native resolution of 1280x1024 have 5:4 proportions - which means square pixels." Yup. I measured my screen and its 5:4 Coldrake


Giolon posted Fri, 27 April 2007 at 7:45 PM

svdl hit the nail on the head with his explanation.

Many LCD screens in the 17"-19" market use 1280x1024 (a 5:4 aspect ratio) as their native resolution.  Before desktop LCD's were common, such a 5:4 resolution was common on laptop LCDs.  I'm not really sure what made made manufacturers opt for 1280x1024 instead of 1280x960 (a lovely 4:3 aspect ratio) in their jump from the 15" to 17" display market, but they did and now you've got lots of us out there with a somewhat oddball, but not totally uncommon, aspect ratio.

¤~Giolon~¤

¤~ RadiantCG ~¤~ My Renderosity Gallery ~¤