And there I was thinking I had SVGA! It's a 5 by 4 monitor btw.

Maybe your pixels aren't square? 1024x768 is 4:3.

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.

If it is a 5x4 it is actually 1280x1024 which is SXGA, (usually a 19" but some 17" were too).

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.

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.)

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 ---->

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 ]

To be fair, that can be achieved with em and rem too.
Or extremely thin fonts in medium gray on a white background.

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 .

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.