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.

Post a reply to this message

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.

Post a reply to this message

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

YEY to 1024x768!!!

I design my websites for use only with 800x600 with a prefered resolution of
1024x768.  I can go a lot higher, but my monitor gets a tad blurry.

--
Lance.


---
For the latest 3D Studio MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
For a totally different experience, visit my Chroma Key Website:
Colorblind - http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/colorblind

Lewis wrote in message <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.

Post a reply to this message

> I'm kind of curious what the "unknown" resolution was, and whether that
> meant didn't know or some strange fractional pixel thing.  j/

The unknow res is from a mixture of sources, older non standard browsers do
not return the screen res, neither do some fringe OS's such as the Amiga OS
or some WebTV systems..

Also web rippers, such as web whacker etc do not provide such information,
but do provide hits etc etc.

Rick

Post a reply to this message

> I design my websites for use only with 800x600 with a prefered resolution
of
> 1024x768.  I can go a lot higher, but my monitor gets a tad blurry

I run a web design company, and all of our sites are designed for 800x600
unless the customer wishes otherwise (theye are always right dont you know,
eh what!)

A to screen res i work at 800x600 and 1024x768, btw dont forget that with
win9x you can change the size of dtop fonts, use desktop/propert./apperance
and adjust the point setting for every element there (just bump them up a
point or 2, it makes a huge difference at high res.), dont use the stuff on
serttings eg large fonts, as this screws up the apperance of almost
everything!

Rick

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 13:05:28 +0100, Rick (Kitty5) <kit### [at] dialpipexcom> wrote:
>
>> I'm kind of curious what the "unknown" resolution was, and whether that
>> meant didn't know or some strange fractional pixel thing.  j/
>
>The unknow res is from a mixture of sources, older non standard browsers do
>not return the screen res, neither do some fringe OS's such as the Amiga OS
>or some WebTV systems..

"Nonstandard"??? Just what standard are you looking at?  Last I checked, 
Javascript is not a required part of HTML 4.0.  In fact, I suspect screen
resolution wouldn't be a required part of any reasonable standard anyway, 
because it makes the (possibly invalid) assumption that the browser renders 
to a graphical display.  Some browsers not only don't render to a graphical 
display, but they don't render to a display at all.

Post a reply to this message