LinuxQuestions.org
Review your favorite Linux distribution.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


View Poll Results: List monitor resolution, select more than one.
nHD 16:9 640 x 360 0 0%
SVGA 4:3 800 x 600 1 4.17%
XGA 4:3 1024 x 768 3 12.50%
WXGA 16:9 1280 x 720 1 4.17%
WXGA 16:10 1280 x 800 3 12.50%
SXGA 5:4 1280 x 1024 4 16.67%
HD ≈16:9 1360 x 768 1 4.17%
HD ≈16:9 1366 x 768 1 4.17%
WXGA+ 16:10 1440 x 900 2 8.33%
N/A 16:9 1536 x 864 0 0%
HD+ 16:9 1600 x 900 1 4.17%
WSXGA+ 16:10 1680 x 1050 3 12.50%
FHD 16:9 1920 x 1080 12 50.00%
WUXGA 16:10 1920 x 1200 4 16.67%
QWXGA 16:9 2048 x 1152 0 0%
N/A ≈21:9 2560 x 1080 0 0%
QHD 16:9 2560 x 1440 1 4.17%
N/A ≈21:9 3440 x 1440 1 4.17%
4K UHD 16:9 3840 x 2160 1 4.17%
More than one monitor 8 33.33%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 24. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 01-23-2021, 12:16 PM   #16
hazel
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2016
Location: Harrow, UK
Distribution: LFS, AntiX, Slackware
Posts: 5,201
Blog Entries: 14

Rep: Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010Reputation: 3010

Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidMcCann View Post
There it is! You've got XGA
And there I was thinking I had SVGA! It's a 5 by 4 monitor btw.
 
Old 01-23-2021, 12:58 PM   #17
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 16,858
Blog Entries: 10

Rep: Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
Code:
mode 1024x768@60.0 on VGA1
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
It's a 5 by 4 monitor btw.
Maybe your pixels aren't square? 1024x768 is 4:3.

Last edited by ondoho; 01-25-2021 at 01:29 AM.
 
Old 01-23-2021, 01:58 PM   #18
obobskivich
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2020
Posts: 242

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
I probably have one of everything on the list, excepting ultra-wide stuff - 1080p is the most common by far. There's still a handful of 4:3, 5:4, 16:10, etc. That said, I tend not to run web browsers (or much else) 'full screen' on WS displays so perhaps 960x1080 is a more accurate response for 'most common' when it comes to applications.

@teckk: FWIW I used a 43" 4K display at my desk for a while, the pixel pitch is similar to "conventional" LCDs (most precisely its the same as 4x21.5" @ 1080p in a 2x2, at 102 PPI) - sitting next to 24" 1080p (92 PPI) or 17" 1280x1024 (96 PPI) its just bigger.
 
Old 01-24-2021, 05:59 AM   #19
fatmac
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2011
Location: Upper Hale, Surrey/Hants Border, UK
Posts: 4,031

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by hazel View Post
And there I was thinking I had SVGA! It's a 5 by 4 monitor btw.
If it is a 5x4 it is actually 1280x1024 which is SXGA, (usually a 19" but some 17" were too).
 
Old 01-26-2021, 09:52 AM   #20
masterclassic
Member
 
Registered: Jun 2007
Distribution: Knoppix
Posts: 228

Rep: Reputation: 59
Last years I use a 19" laptop at home (1600X900) and a EISO 1680X1050 22" flat monitor at work (OK, since last spring I mostly access it from my home through teamviewer, so the size I get is finally smaller than the laptop's screen). I did select them both in the poll list above.

There are still one or two old 17" CRT monitors from the past, working probably at 1024X768 or 1280X1024, nevertheless I don't use them since a few years (I didn't select them in the poll). I don't use mobile devices for internet access.
 
Old 01-26-2021, 02:06 PM   #21
rnturn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois (SW Chicago 'burbs)
Distribution: openSUSE, Raspbian, Slackware. Older: Coherent, MacOS, Red Hat, Big Iron IXs: AIX, Solaris, Tru64
Posts: 2,325

Rep: Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438
I had a very nice LG 1900x1200 monitor up until a year or so ago. The power switch failed on it and, if it had failed such that I couldn't turn it off, I'd still have it. (Took me forever to find an electronics recycling depot that didn't want to charge a wad of cash to turn it in.)
 
Old 01-26-2021, 02:49 PM   #22
rnturn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2003
Location: Illinois (SW Chicago 'burbs)
Distribution: openSUSE, Raspbian, Slackware. Older: Coherent, MacOS, Red Hat, Big Iron IXs: AIX, Solaris, Tru64
Posts: 2,325

Rep: Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438Reputation: 438
Quote:
Originally Posted by ondoho View Post
when I design web, all dimensions are in em or rem
You are in, I think, a minority. Many web sites completely ignore their users' preferences and force either squinty typeface sizes or make them cartoonishly large (I'm talkin' 'bout you, LinkedIn). Often, browser plug-ins like Body-Font-Size are unable to help.

<---- Your reply should be this wide for the best viewing experience ---->
 
Old 01-27-2021, 01:59 AM   #23
ondoho
LQ Addict
 
Registered: Dec 2013
Posts: 16,858
Blog Entries: 10

Rep: Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013Reputation: 5013
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnturn View Post
You are in, I think, a minority.
When I tried to make sane decisions on how to design my site to be simple and apdaptive, it involved a lot of web searching and reading articles written by web designers for web designers.
Many of them really went down some sort of collective rabbit hole, and I decided to take a few precious, basic ideas and GTFO again.
So you might be right there.

I also soon dismissed any of these "bootstrap CSS frameworks", which essentially make you load a whole bunch of additional CSS that magically solves all your sizing & layout problems etc., but you end up using only 10% of it, and overriding another 10%.
Just another high-calory food that makes the WWW morbidly obese.
Nevertheless, it's worth looking at their basic ideas.
[ I just had a look at the code, and horror of horrors, they use pixels everywhere! SMH ]

Quote:
Many web sites completely ignore their users' preferences and force either squinty typeface sizes or make them cartoonishly large (I'm talkin' 'bout you, LinkedIn). Often, browser plug-ins like Body-Font-Size are unable to help.
To be fair, that can be achieved with em and rem too.
Or extremely thin fonts in medium gray on a white background.

Quote:
<---- Your reply should be this wide for the best viewing experience ---->
Depends on what you mean. If you mean "Your reply should be at most this many characters wide", then I agree in principle although I'd make the maximum width slightly wider.

Nevertheless, the web still abounds with insanities, javascript "OOTB" solutions where a slightly more complex CSS would have worked just as well (lazy devs), sites that don't show anything until you allow javascript, etc.

All in all, it seems that many web designers are trying their worst to work _against_ HTML instead of working with it. It was designed for precisely that: show text in a structured, readable way - whatever the client's window layout and preferences are. It is simple and effective in achieving that goal.
In a way, the very invention of CSS was already working against that.

I'm rambling now, but it's worth reading this article, and of course also this .
 
Old 01-27-2021, 02:37 PM   #24
baumei
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2019
Location: USA; North Carolina
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 212

Rep: Reputation: 71
Hi "eight.bit.al",

For the website you are creating, instead of making your website require the viewer run their web-browser at full-screen in order to avoid sideways scrolling, why not make your website scale reasonably to whatever size window (not screen-size) which the viewer may be employing? To view a website, people use devices with various size screens: 'cellphones', netbooks, tablets, small laptops, large laptops, desktops with monitors of all sizes, TVs, and whatnot.

The monitor I use the most is 10" diagonal with 1024x600 pixels. I see this size is not in the list above. Nearly always I have the window size set to significantly less than full-screen.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Type 'sudo' is not known on line 2 in source list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/signal-xenial.list" jameswilson0609 Linux - Newbie 3 05-29-2019 01:04 PM
Linux Virtual Memory size; Page size; Resident Data Size; DB2Database; Explanation ANanalanalyzer Linux - Newbie 1 09-28-2018 05:50 PM
E: Type 'sudo' is not known on line 1 in source list /etc/apt/sources.list.d/mono-official.list 221B Linux - Newbie 6 09-07-2017 01:14 PM
'E:Malformed line 54 in source list /etc/apt/sources.list (dist parse), E:The list of vsssuccess@gmail.com Linux - Desktop 1 11-17-2010 09:17 AM
Total partition size - User partition size is not equals to Free partition size navaneethanj Linux - General 5 06-14-2004 01:55 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:43 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration