Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?
Displays The Internet Stats Technology

1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time 394

mpol writes "Statcounter released new statistics today and 1366x768 is now the most used screen resolution on the internet. These screens are available in most cheap laptops, and therefore probably sold and used very much. With 19.2%, it is beating the old 4:3 resolution, which still has 18.6% usage share. (But as you know, you have lies, damn lies, and statistics.)" The numbers are still close, but it sounds like the tide has turned.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

1366x768 Monitors Top 1024x768 For the First Time

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Who cares? (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:11PM (#39662877) Journal

    I see you are unfamilliar with the word "peak". I suggest you consult a dictionary and contrast with the word "end". They are not synonyms.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

    by spottedkangaroo ( 451692 ) * on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:14PM (#39662925) Homepage

    It's not bullshit, it's straight up harder on your eyes if you're doing a lot of scanning. If you're spending a long time concentrating on the various parts of the line (like in code) ymmv, but in general, your eyes scan like shit if the text is too wide. However, it's not a number of characters, it's a certain angular width... so distance to the monitor and dpi matter just as much. I also expect the angle differs for everyone.

    Personally, I use a 4:3 section of the screen for code ... and maximize (16:9) if I'm working with really long lines. I also use a pretty big font these days... other words ... blah.

    But his point was that, for text tracking, your eyes do best in a narrower area. I bet you read web pages more than you write code.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:5, Informative)

    by ducman ( 107063 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2012 @03:59PM (#39663913)

    Fine in theory, but I've tried that with several different mid-range displays. The rotated sub pixel orientation plus the variation in brightness from top to bottom makes working with text unpleasant. Maybe an IPS display would be better, but I haven't been able to afford one.

    More importantly, most 16:9 monitors are 1080 pixels tall, which gives you just 1080 wide when turned 90. That's barely better than the old-fashioned 1024x786 that wasn't wide enough a decade ago.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Hatta ( 162192 ) on Thursday April 12, 2012 @04:27PM (#39664471) Journal

    What if you need access to three or more windows, and need to switch back and forth between them quickly

    That's what virtual desktops are for.

  • Re:Who cares? (Score:4, Informative)

    by harrkev ( 623093 ) <> on Thursday April 12, 2012 @04:37PM (#39664665) Homepage

    Dell U3011. I use one at work, AND one at home. If you are patient, you can grab one for around $1200 -- well worth it. The only real down side is that is uses fluorescent-tube backlighting, so it takes a minute or two in order to brighten up. Lots of input options, including two HDMI ports, with analog audio out.

    Work: Red Hat running a pair of nVidia Quadro cards (overkill, since I do NOTHING 3-D).
    Home: XP-Pro with ATI 5550 -- Not great, but I generally game at lower resolutions. I got the monitor for those days when I work from home -- I get a LOT more done.

Things are not as simple as they seems at first. - Edward Thorp