Glad to see I manage to stay mainstream, 800x600 here. My higher
resolution renders are intended for printing instead, and until I have a
19" monitor I can't make much use of the 1024x768; I wear glasses,
though don't wear them for close up, and tiny things on-screen bother
me.
I'm kind of curious what the "unknown" resolution was, and whether that
meant didn't know or some strange fractional pixel thing.  j/k


"Rick (Kitty5)" wrote:
> 
> I do render that high for desktop use, but i shrink it down to post here or
> on the net, filesize dont you know!
> 
> Rick
> Lewis <ble### [at] netvisionnetil> wrote in message
> news:3724AAFB.4C52997F@netvision.net.il...
> > You have been warned: this message my be totaly boring.
> >
> > Here are some stats of the visitors to my web site. I know it has hardly
> > anything to do with POV, but some stuff that should interest us as
> > computer users.
> >
> > Resolution of visitors:
> > 800x600 130 (43%)
> > 1024x768 99 (33%)
> > 640x480 46 (15%)
> > 1152x864 16 (5%)
> > 1280x1024 7 (2%)
> > Unknown 1 (0%)
> > 1600x1200 0 (0%)
> >
> > It is interesting to know that many (33%) visitors had a relatively high
> > resolution - 1024*768, and that 640*480 is even less common than that
> > (640*480 used to be the MOST common)
> >
> > Just interesting data (to me), for as POV users we should know what's
> > the most common resolution - is it worth rendering in 1024*768? I think
> > so.

-- 
 omniVERSE: beyond the universe
  http://members.aol.com/inversez/homepage.htm
 mailto:inv### [at] aolcom?Subject=PoV-News

Post a reply to this message