I recently came across a thread on a random forum where it called out to the members to post a screenshot of their desktop to show off their wallpaper graphics.
What was interesting wasn’t the graphics per sé but rather the screen resolution for most of the screen shots shown, which happened to be 1024×768. It showed up so much that a few commented on it saying something to the effect of, "Why are all you people using such low resolutions?"
Want to know the real kicker? These people posting screen shots were all in their late teens, 20s and 30s. This was not 40+ territory whatsoever.
So why is it that so many people still use 1024×768?
There’s actually a few good answers.
If you’re on a netbook, the vast majority of them have screens that are a native resolution of 1024×576 or 1024×600.
A teen may be using his parent’s computer where the parent prefers the resolution at something he or she can read, and that’s usually 1024×768.
The really interesting crowd are the twenty and thirty-somethings. I fall into this crowd because I’m 34. I wear eyeglasses, but my primary 20-inch monitor is 1680×1050 and the secondary 1280×1024. What’s the deal with 1024×768 in this age group?
The answer is something you probably didn’t think of: Games.
Games run much better and faster at lower resolutions. And if you keep your Windows resolution as 1024×768, when the switch to the game happens your icons don’t get all messed up and moved around. This is common in XP when you have your Windows resolution set different than your game resolution.
In addition, not all computer gamers run the newest blazing fast PC hardware. Many run decidedly old stuff and couldn’t care less about things like anisotropic filtering as long as the game plays smooth and fast. To get any advantage in speed and smoothness possible, the resolution is lowered on purpose even if the eyesight is just fine.
If you thought 1024×768 was only for the 40+ crowd, think again. There are plenty, and I mean plenty of younger users rockin’ the 1024 resolution for daily use.
What’s your res?
Write a comment and let people know. Include the resolution and your monitor’s physical size (ex: 17-inch, 19-inch, 20-inch, etc.)
Loading ...
Ken Starnes
08. Sep, 2009
At home all 4 PCs use 1024×7678 (17″ CRT monitors) . At work I use 1280×1024 (LCD 19″ Dell) My laptops are at native resolution depending on their age.
As Rich says – it’s being able to read the fonts on the screens which keeps me at lower resolutions.
Ken Starnes
08. Sep, 2009
oops – that should read 1024×768
Doctor Gonzo
08. Sep, 2009
I’ve got a three monitor setup: center 24″ widescreen is at 1920×1200, and two flanking 19″ at 1280×1024.
Sadly, I have plenty of users at work that are at 1024×768, and I have to make my apps conform to this. At least I’ve moved everybody off of 800×600!
MrDravenX
08. Sep, 2009
On my Dell XPS M1530 notebook I’m running 1920 X 1200. I believe it’s a 17″ display.
Brian
08. Sep, 2009
I don’t think I could stand not using an LCD monitor at native resolution. It just never looks right no matter how good the scaler is. For games with tons of motion, it would not matter. But for text, etc., I would rather have smaller but cleaner. I guess on advantage of Vista is that it notices when you are not using native resolution, so it is less painful to move back and forth. Is there a little app for XP that does this?
(I’ll be 40 in December, FYI).
Sean
08. Sep, 2009
1440×900
eli
08. Sep, 2009
I use 1680×1050 at home on a 22″ LCD. At work is one 1024×768 & one 1440×900 19″. I love the 1680×1050, I love the real estate, and with no vision problems yet, it suits me just fine.
Sharron Field
08. Sep, 2009
I have 2 computers; one running XP Pro SP3 32-bit, which has a 17″ TFT monitor at resolution 1024×768. The other box runs Windows 7 Ultimate RC1 64-bit and has a 17″ CRT monitor… That’s not a typo; it’s a CRT monitor, and it’ll reach its 10th birthday since its manufacture before New Year too. That also is at 1024×768.
(I just absolutely love CRTs; even though TFT is much more energy efficient, lighter, and saves space. – Nothing beats the colour-depth of a good CRT monitor.)
capricornus
08. Sep, 2009
I (now 53 y old) once was a radiologist, and I once published on resolution, important in the early days of CAT. My colleagues and I used mathematics to prove that the optimal resolution has to do with the information you want to acquire and use. Game players obviously need an optimum resolution, and it seems to be 1024×768, the resolution I’m using right now. I have other monitors with higher resolution, it is easier to work with, but playing and working, it ain’t the same, is it?
Sharron Field
08. Sep, 2009
I’ll just add, at this point, that the last time I played a game on either computer was in March, I think it was, when I beat Windows 7 at chess with a checkmate. It’s not gaming that I use this res for; it’s everything basically.
Sevillian273
08. Sep, 2009
I’m at 1280×960 on a 21″ CRT. Any higher res, and I would have trouble reading text in XP.
Renegeek Computers
08. Sep, 2009
My standards are:
15′ mon = 8×6 res
17′ mon = 10×7
19′ mon = 12×10
23′ wide = 19×10
I have about 8 pc’s, and alll different Monitors… and these are my setting i use.
Juppy
09. Sep, 2009
My monitor is a Samsung 19″ LCD and I just run it at the native 1280×1024. Other resolutions are okay, not too blurry or anything, but that’s about as small as I want the icons and text to be. I never have run at 1024×768 though….my previous monitor was an Acer 17″ and I kept it on 800×600. Same reason….1024 just made the text seem so tiny even though I had 20/20 vision at that time. Still have that vision at 36 years old now, but the 1280×1024 res suits me fine.
Vertimyst
09. Sep, 2009
I have my (19″ I think) laptop, running at 1400×900, connected to what I think is a 19″ 1280×900 LCD. Although, I’m looking to get a 22″ widescreen at some time, for a new gaming build. I’m 17, 18 in January, for the record.
Jase
09. Sep, 2009
my main monitor is a 19″ wide LCD with a native resolution of 1680×1050
secondary is a 17″ CRT at 1024 by 768
on my work machine I use a 15″ CRT at 800×600
and my dos system uses a 14″ CRT at 640×480
I’m 26 although age is just a number.
)
Peter Jenkins
09. Sep, 2009
At work I am using a 21 in CRT running at 2048×1536
At home I have a 24in LCD running at 1920×1200, and an older laptop which runs at 1024×768
I prefer to have the highest resolution I can get for the screen space, as I multitask a lot
For the record I am 46, and have 20/20 vision as far as I know
I also manage a website aimed at a largely non-technical local audience (and users are possibly a little older than average) and looking at the monitor resolution stats laregly bears out what Rich is saying – a full 30.2% of users are still running at 1024×768, with an incredible 6% still at 800×600. Higher resolutions, mostly widescreen comprise the rest however. Possibly people out her in NZ are a bit slower to upgrade/ replace monitors though?
Regards
Peter
Jase
09. Sep, 2009
As a fellow kiwi. Pete, I’d agree with your assessment regarding monitor replacement. The whole “kiwi ingenuity” thing has a lot to do with it, why replace what isn’t necessarily broken.
Greg
09. Sep, 2009
Native resolution only for me. Can’t stand visual artifacts from non-native.
lespaul20
10. Sep, 2009
Don’t you have some analytics that can tell what the user of this site have for hardware and software, at least OS and resolution? I think I remember David posting the results a few years ago.
I have 1680×1050 for both of mine.
Rich Menga
10. Sep, 2009
We do, I’ll have to ask Dave about that, he has the stats.
This however is also a good read:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
It shows plainly that yes, 1024×768 is still on top of the heap (overall, the higher resolutions are split into lower figures). Incredible!
joe6966
11. Sep, 2009
1440 x 900 17″ LCD laptop
marc
12. Sep, 2009
I use 1280 x 1024 with my desktop icons enlarged via Windoze Display Properties.
Monitoring traffic on a half-dozen sites indicates a handful of visitors still using 800 x 600, a handful at rez higher than 1280 x 1024, but the rest pretty evenly split between 1280 x 1024 and 1024 x 768. Just my experience.
The problem with lower resolutions is in viewing web pages. Although I see a few web designers still fixing widths and font sizes to be user-friendly at 800 x 600, most have graduated to wider widths that require folks at low rez to scroll. Font sizes for 800 x 600 cause people at higher rez to squint or adjust their browser view.
The ultimate web pages, IMO, are liquid in width with font sizes that adjust to the viewer’s screen rez. Sizes are done in percentages rather than fixed values. Although the graphics stay fixed, no one has to scroll to view the full page, the text is always sized to be readable and the full page fills the browser window regardless of rez.
Mahdi
13. Sep, 2009
I’m 28. my monitor is a 17″ CRT and my resolution is 1024×768 an I use this because I use my computer for reading and web surf and in this resolution its readable but for a 19″ or 20″ at least 1280×1024 its depend on monitor size
and I think this resolution is widely use just because of suing 17″ monitor and if new wider LCD replace current monitor the resolution will increase
Jason
16. Sep, 2009
I’ve been using a laptop as my primary (and only) computer for several years now, but it took me a while (and a few returns) to find the size and resolution that works best for me…
I’ve had my Dell Latitude E6400 for almost a year and the 14.1″ WXGA+ (1440×900) LED-backlit display is the best I’ve ever used! I originally purchased an E6400 with a WXGA (1280×800) standard (CCFL) display and returned it after a few days. In addition to the higher resolution, the WXGA+ display is also LED-backlit and has significantly higher max. brightness (250-nits vs. 200-nits).
On my previous 15.4″ notebooks, the sweet spot was WSXGA+ (1680×1050) but it has been slowly disappearing as WUXGA (1920×1200) has replaced it on most models.
John
03. Oct, 2009
Primary computer, 1920×1200 running an hd2900xt on a 24″ monitor… (or dual monitor’s at 1920 x 1200 and 1024 x 768 respectively if i feel like it). Occasionally for some intensive games I do lower the resolution in game, but I prefer not to go any lower than 1440 x 900.
The computer i set up for my mum runs 1440 x 900 with an HD 3450 on a 19″ monitor with the windows text size slightly increased.
(My ageing P4 3.2 currently runs at 1024 x 768 on a 17″ (spare) monitor although it has run all other resolutions I have listed with the other two monitors listed using a radeon 9550 with no problems but relatively poor gaming performance.)
DukeCylk
21. Oct, 2009
two side by side 19″ Dell LCDs at work running 1280×1024….not sure about the view sonic 18″ at home, but the 20″ LCD the kids use tops out at 780 lines of resolution and I’m not sure what res they’re using there
one this I know about gaming from my son, it doesn’t matter what res you run the game changes the res for it’s optimal graphics
ChanTran
18. Nov, 2009
My desktop computer having 2 screens. Both are 21″ CRT. The main one oriented in landscape mode is running at 2048×1536, the second one in portrait mode running at 1900×1400.
The laptop is 15″ and running at native resolution of 1600×1200.
I am 54 year old and is wearing +2 glasses.
Larger text doesn’t read better but sharper text does. I always run my monitor at highest resolution. If the text is small then simply change the font size.