[Peter]

1280x1024
you?

[effgee]

Originally posted by Peter:
1280x1024. you?

... 2560x1024 ... same as last year.

[rozwado1]

You guys are dorks.

My resolution is to trim down to 220 and get cut up by the end of April. 10lbs. in 4 months isn't hard. Also: 1280x854 by June.

[Goldfinger]

Really geeky but funny nonetheless.

1280x854 + 1024x768 btw

[rozwado1]

Petition to change thread title to "What's your New Year's *Screen* Resolution?"

[skalie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
1280x854

What shape is your monitor?

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by skalie:
What shape is your monitor?

oval

[rozwado1]

Originally posted by skalie:
What shape is your monitor?

[skalie]

k thanks, is that the 17 inch btw?

*wonders how many websites he has made that would totally suck when viewed at that resolution*

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by skalie:
k thanks, is that the 17 inch btw?

*wonders how many websites he has made that would totally suck when viewed at that resolution*

Nop, 15". The 17"is 1440 x 900.

[Gankdawg]

1600 X 1200

[Ghoser777]

36-24-36
Only if she's 5'3"

Oh wait...

[skalie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
Nop, 15". The 17"is 1440 x 900.

Even worse, how many websites work on that resolution btw? 8 out of 10?

[Kilbey]

1280 x 960 @ 72 Hz, millions of colors

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by skalie:
Even worse, how many websites work on that resolution btw? 8 out of 10?

What do you mean ? Why would't websites "work" at that resolution ?

[SimpleLife]

chumoy in a round peppermint aluminum box.

[skalie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
What do you mean ? Why would't websites "work" at that resolution ?

Esthetically, I design initially for 17 inch monitors at a 1024 x 768 resolution, I check that they work on 800 x 600, but my worry was that a 17 inch power book's resolution (1440 x 900) would make everything look "sideways stretched" to say the least.

Of course the websites will "work", it's more a matter of whether they will look any good.

I already hack css files to adapt to different resolutions, just hadn't taken the home cinema type format into consideration.

Yet.

[Goldfinger]

Widescreen monitors don't stretch the image like widescreen TVs do with a 4:3 image. You probably jus get some whitespace, depends on your design tough. Websites don't look different on widescreen. There aren't a lot of people who have their browser full screen (on the Mac anyway). BTW: 17" 1024x768 monitor ? That's a bit dated, isn't it ?

[skalie]

call me old fashioned

[Goldfinger]

Originally posted by skalie:
call me old fashioned

Will do

No seriously, designing your websites so they work with low resolution is a good thing and don't worry about widescreen, sites don't look any different.

[skalie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
depends on your design though

Hammer + nail + head

[Scifience]

Two monitors at 1280x1024.
Two monitors at 1024x768.

[skalie]

Originally posted by Goldfinger:
No seriously, designing your websites so they work with low resolution is a good thing and don't worry about widescreen, sites don't look any different.

At the risk of getting this thread sent off to the web developer forum, I've been dabbling in css for positioning, you sort of make a "container" (box) and then position everything within that container.

Center it and all that, has had some strange results even with the limited resolutions I've used for testing.

I guess the only way I'm going to put my mind at rest is to talk my boss into getting me a 17 inch powerbook, for prosperity or someit.

[MindFad]

1056x792 in the house, ya'll!

[davidflas]

1600x1200 @85Hz Millions of colors

and chillin' by the fire

[TailsToo]

1680x1050 and 1280x854.

[budster101]

1920 x 1080

[xi_hyperon]

1280 x 960. And for the year, I've resolved to eschew responsibility through obfuscation.

[ReggieX]

1280x1024 + 640x480 TV.