Is It Still A 1024×768 World?
I recently came across a thread on a random forum where it called out to the members to post a screenshot of their desktop to show off their wallpaper graphics.
What was interesting wasn’t the graphics per sé but rather the screen resolution for most of the screen shots shown, which happened to be 1024×768. It showed up so much that a few commented on it saying something to the effect of, "Why are all you people using such low resolutions?"
Want to know the real kicker? These people posting screen shots were all in their late teens, 20s and 30s. This was not 40+ territory whatsoever.
So why is it that so many people still use 1024×768?
There’s actually a few good answers.
If you’re on a netbook, the vast majority of them have screens that are a native resolution of 1024×576 or 1024×600.
A teen may be using his parent’s computer where the parent prefers the resolution at something he or she can read, and that’s usually 1024×768.
The really interesting crowd are the twenty and thirty-somethings. I fall into this crowd because I’m 34. I wear eyeglasses, but my primary 20-inch monitor is 1680×1050 and the secondary 1280×1024. What’s the deal with 1024×768 in this age group?
The answer is something you probably didn’t think of: Games.
Games run much better and faster at lower resolutions. And if you keep your Windows resolution as 1024×768, when the switch to the game happens your icons don’t get all messed up and moved around. This is common in XP when you have your Windows resolution set different than your game resolution.
In addition, not all computer gamers run the newest blazing fast PC hardware. Many run decidedly old stuff and couldn’t care less about things like anisotropic filtering as long as the game plays smooth and fast. To get any advantage in speed and smoothness possible, the resolution is lowered on purpose even if the eyesight is just fine.
If you thought 1024×768 was only for the 40+ crowd, think again. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of younger users rockin’ the 1024 resolution for daily use.
What’s your res?
Write a comment and let people know. Include the resolution and your monitor’s physical size (ex: 17-inch, 19-inch, 20-inch, etc.)
Open Source Tool To Split And Merge PDF Files
Read Next
26 thoughts on “Is It Still A 1024×768 World?”
Since some people saying gaming is faster at a lower res I wonder if that would affect the speed of anything graphics related (ie Photoshop). I make ads for a living and I wonder if that would slow down my programs. Not worth it to me, but my coworker seems to have a higher res.
At home we have one computer hooked up to our 52″ flat screen tv and have the resolution at 1024×768. My husband does gaming, but I don’t think that’s necessarily what influenced our resolution settings (we surf the web, watch movies, tv shows streamed from the internet). Viewing the tv from across the room would make any higher resolution really difficult to read. Again, I don’t know if tinkering with the font sizes would be the results we’d want. I just try to choose “hi res” when I view tv clips on hulu.
I’m 27 by the way.
The laptop is 15″ and running at native resolution of 1600×1200.
I am 54 year old and is wearing +2 glasses.
Larger text doesn’t read better but sharper text does. I always run my monitor at highest resolution. If the text is small then simply change the font size.
one this I know about gaming from my son, it doesn’t matter what res you run the game changes the res for it’s optimal graphics
The computer i set up for my mum runs 1440 x 900 with an HD 3450 on a 19″ monitor with the windows text size slightly increased.
(My ageing P4 3.2 currently runs at 1024 x 768 on a 17″ (spare) monitor although it has run all other resolutions I have listed with the other two monitors listed using a radeon 9550 with no problems but relatively poor gaming performance.)
I’ve had my Dell Latitude E6400 for almost a year and the 14.1″ WXGA+ (1440×900) LED-backlit display is the best I’ve ever used! I originally purchased an E6400 with a WXGA (1280×800) standard (CCFL) display and returned it after a few days. In addition to the higher resolution, the WXGA+ display is also LED-backlit and has significantly higher max. brightness (250-nits vs. 200-nits).
On my previous 15.4″ notebooks, the sweet spot was WSXGA+ (1680×1050) but it has been slowly disappearing as WUXGA (1920×1200) has replaced it on most models.
and I think this resolution is widely use just because of suing 17″ monitor and if new wider LCD replace current monitor the resolution will increase
Monitoring traffic on a half-dozen sites indicates a handful of visitors still using 800 x 600, a handful at rez higher than 1280 x 1024, but the rest pretty evenly split between 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768. Just my experience.
The problem with lower resolutions is in viewing web pages. Although I see a few web designers still fixing widths and font sizes to be user-friendly at 800 x 600, most have graduated to wider widths that require folks at low rez to scroll. Font sizes for 800 x 600 cause people at higher rez to squint or adjust their browser view.
The ultimate web pages, IMO, are liquid in width with font sizes that adjust to the viewer’s screen rez. Sizes are done in percentages rather than fixed values. Although the graphics stay fixed, no one has to scroll to view the full page, the text is always sized to be readable and the full page fills the browser window regardless of rez.
I have 1680×1050 for both of mine.
This however is also a good read:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
It shows plainly that yes, 1024×768 is still on top of the heap (overall, the higher resolutions are split into lower figures). Incredible!
At home I have a 24in LCD running at 1920×1200, and an older laptop which runs at 1024×768
I prefer to have the highest resolution I can get for the screen space, as I multitask a lot
For the record I am 46, and have 20/20 vision as far as I know
I also manage a website aimed at a largely non-technical local audience (and users are possibly a little older than average) and looking at the monitor resolution stats laregly bears out what Rich is saying – a full 30.2% of users are still running at 1024×768, with an incredible 6% still at 800×600. Higher resolutions, mostly widescreen comprise the rest however. Possibly people out her in NZ are a bit slower to upgrade/ replace monitors though?
Regards
Peter
secondary is a 17″ CRT at 1024 by 768
on my work machine I use a 15″ CRT at 800×600
and my dos system uses a 14″ CRT at 640×480
I’m 26 although age is just a number. :o)
15′ mon = 8×6 res
17′ mon = 10×7
19′ mon = 12×10
23′ wide = 19×10
I have about 8 pc’s, and alll different Monitors… and these are my setting i use.
(I just absolutely love CRTs; even though TFT is much more energy efficient, lighter, and saves space. – Nothing beats the colour-depth of a good CRT monitor.)
(I’ll be 40 in December, FYI).
Sadly, I have plenty of users at work that are at 1024×768, and I have to make my apps conform to this. At least I’ve moved everybody off of 800×600!
As Rich says – it’s being able to read the fonts on the screens which keeps me at lower resolutions.