Anyone using 800x600 resolution nowadays?

Please vote

1024 * 800
I think, im on a laptop

heyho oliver,
these are my homepage stats for today:

1280x1024 419 (36.37 %)
1024x768 293 (25.43 %)
1680x1050 134 (11.63 %)
1280x800 130 (11.28 %)
1152x864 49 (4.25 %)
1440x900 46 (3.99 %)
1280x960 22 (1.91 %)
1920x1200 17 (1.48 %)
800x600 10 (0.87 %)
1400x1050 6 (0.52 %)

maybe it's usefull for you :]

yes, very useful! ty

Oh, and 1600x1200 for me

steam survey:

800 x 600
1.05%
1024 x 768
25.42%
1152 x 864
4.13%
1280 x 720
0.62%
1280 x 768
0.88%
1280 x 800
8.25%
1280 x 960
2.17%
1280 x 1024
25.25%
1440 x 900
9.87%
1600 x 1200
1.26%
1680 x 1050
14.26%
1920 x 1200
3.57%

W3Schools

Thank you guys. I see, there are still many 800x600 users.

what is that survey for? wesites? or game resolutions?

accordinh to steam(gaming paltform, you interested in gamer's res right?)

800x600 is %1.

Both. I'm using a 800x600 monitor for 8 years now, and I see more and more websites go away from 800x600 compability. I want to buy a bigger monitor now and think of redesign my websites.

wow that must be some badass xray cannon. the only 800x600 monitor we had shipped with out win95 pc in 1996. glad we got that out of the house.

designing websites myself, i consider 800x600 resoultion desktops equivalent to a win95 or win98 system, with IE 4, 5 or 6 on it. down to 6 i may go, but even that is unbelievably annoying, making all the extra css and code. not to mention the several shortcomings when it comes to alpha rendering.
the thing with websites is, who is your target visitor. for university sites, it might be appropriate to go down to 800x600. for a lifestyle site, i don't see why this is necessary. and speaking of gamer sites, who usually have the coolest tech specs anyway, why should anyone think of reducing the res to that level?

it's different with games. i hate games that you can't turn down to 800x600 or even 640x480. it won't run on my radeon9600 properly otherwise on my laptop, that's important if it's just a casual game and i don't wanna install it on my big dev tower, plus, i need to run it in a window sometimes. windows that are 1024x768 big really take up too much space.

i still think 800x600 is a nice size for websites.we use it often at work to use free space around as a design aspect

most websites are full of garbage and the interesting information fits even into 640x480 if you ask me

When I play a game in windowed mode, I prefer 800x600.

For websites I've set my lowest requirements like this:

800x600x16, at least IE6 supported (maybe with unimportant flaws). Netscape 4 is not supported at all, Netscape6 untested, Netscape7, Mozilla 1.5 operating fine.
Opera9, Firefox2, IE7, Chrome are a must.

800x600 is still interesting for web TV, certain console browsers, webbooks and the like.
For the desktop PC this resolution is dying out and can be ignored soon.

But I agree with ello that some border around the main website is a good design element. This is why I stay at 800x600 for now.

its just tooo ugly if you use a TFT with 800*600 (and i think that the trend goes to 16:10 and always bigger res. ...1600*1050 will be (in my opinion) the best ress in the next 2 jears for a 22 zoll TFT

But beside that I know many "pro-gamers" (explicit CS-ler) which play with a 800*600 ress..

(sry for my bad eng )

1024x768

1280x1024

Personally I design websites and cd presentations for clients at 1024x768 res only (anything lower is forsaken in my books). As far as games are concerned, I am at the moment playing a 3D game which has NO resolution option, is stuck at 800x600 resolution, no AA option, nothing. Game has beatiful artwork and is a casual hit, but I had to force AA using nHancer to get the 'right' look.

Needless to say that I hate 3D games which come without any option to increase/decrease resolutions or enable/disable AA.

not very informative post, but.. i share the opinion of broozar for 1000%

1280x1024,
but I know many people, who are using 800x600,
but 640x480 is no one using,
it's story now
kwpsp

I'm using 320x240























Kidding! 1280x768 (laptop, max is 1280x800)

professional 3d apps like xsi need screens with a certain resolution, otherwise some buttons are cut off, yes there is a laptop mode that limits the application's height, but it's no fun.

one thing i would remember you of, we are approaching the decade of low-energy consuming, small, handy, styled devices, netbooks, pdas, handhelds. the eeepc and the acer one have a 1024x600 res, (casual) games that start on 800x600 will already be off screen, as you need space for the taskbar, the window decoration and the borders! tablet handhelds like the archos 7 series support only 800x600 natively, it can't run win games, but this might be important for web designers. dunno if it scales though, like the iPhone/iPodTouch.

so know your target customers and their devices. it would be unreasonable to design far cry 2 for 640x480, and also unreasonable to make a 2d chess for 1280x1024 only.

I'm using 1152x864.

I think you shouldn't turn things around... People that want to play Far Cry 2, should simply have a PC that can run that game. Same goes for 2D chess. If 1280x1024 is the only resolution supported, then people shouldn't even bother trying on a eeePC.

You know, we the consumers just have to accept things like this. I'm not ever going to play Crysis on my mobile phone, even though surely it would be very cool... it just won't be possible.

Cheers

Steam only checks ingame resolutions, most modern games do not even support 800x600 resolutions anymore, so people playing older games in the lower resolutions will inevitably be an incredibly small part of all Steam users.

Cheers

But you might have wanted to play the chess game - but unfortuantely can't because of the resolution.
That's the point.

As I wrote I used the 800x600 monitor for 8 years. In this time I was angry at programs like "Nvidia Meloldy" which only support a 1024x768 window. Every time I wanted to use the program I had to change my screen resolution. Very annoying.

I'm running on 1680x1050 on my primary monitor and 1280x1024 on my secondary.

I think it's just not a good thing to force limitations on your customers.

My opinion is to keep the 800 x 600.

I think the casual games should definitely still have this option available, because a lot of people still have a computer from ages ago, and wont buy a new one when theirs works fine.

But again, that's primarily for the casual games crowd.

The Steam ratings are from a base of game players... and it's obvious they will have higher end equipment to run games with, so for this particular matter, their poll is worthless.

I think Casual games should still have 800 x 600 resolution, but games who count on graphics as their only draw probaby won't want this.

I wonder though, how much work is it to keep/add this resolution to the options? To me it's really a non point. The player should be able to decide for themselves.

Wrong or right, i'm not going to lose a single customer because I just felt like removing a screen resolution option. There's still people using that resolution, and so I won't deny them. That would be bad customer relations.

In my opinion, this thread could have been answered simply with a response of:

"Not many people use this, but since some people do, there's no reason to remove this option because it's pointless to do so"

- Jason

Actually, depending on the game it can prove to be a real hassle implementing every possible resolution out there.

Really, adding scripts to automatically adjust panels is one thing, making it all look (and work) good at both 640x480 and 1280x1024 is something else!

I think it's a very acceptable argument to drop features if not many people use it anymore. It happens all the time and makes sure things move forward,

Cheers

Concerning a website the first thing to check is: Do I need 1024x768 at all?

It's a lot more space to fill, and if you don't have the content - why even bother?

actually i'm using 1152x864 resolution cause it's the only good to me.
but i use that only on desktop, in games res is often quite bigger

Yeah, I agree. You often see those huge resolution websites with only like a quarter of the window filled with website content. Quite pointless...

I use 1024x600 on my EEPc.
(these tiny Micro Laptops)

In this sense, there is a new Market for small resulutions again.