1025 x 768: Most Common Screen Resolution

Hmm. JavaScript window.innerWidth should do the trick.

Well, yeah, but I want to know this value for a huge range of Web users, not just mine. I'd be interested in this as a survey like the screen resolution survey they did here.

Hello most sites I have gone to are still at 800x600 To me this more injoyable to look at to me.One of the servers I have where my 5 web sites are he still build's all his sites at 800x600, but looking up on the seach for most comman setting for screen resolution 1024 x 768 sames to be the most comman. I mysefl have not found that true checking other web sites out. Thank, Ed

well... I think that most developers are still developing their sites to have a nice look and feel in 800, so they don't skip most people regardless. However, I simply make sure that the images work well in 800 without any overlapping or scrolling left and right, then make the table widths = 100%. Granted, sometimes this will look funky in higher resolutions... say 1280, but if people are viewing at that resolution, they probably want to read smaller text

It's great to finally get an educated opinion, and not just some mushy "maybe this, maybe that, do what you feel is best for you". Solid answers are too difficult to come by. I really appreciate them!

I always put my resolution to the highest it can take, this being 1280 x 1024, this is due to the fact it gives you such much more space to work in without huge toolbars covering half the screen. I prefer sites that adjust to the resolution but if it had to be fixed width I would like to see more at 1024 x 768 as that now is increasing as the most common for users.

1024x768

there's an easy way to avoid the whole thing, simply make it vector based or use tables or div tags with percentages

Just over half of all monitors are at 1024.. But approx. 25% are set at 800.. So, if you choose to cater to the most popular 1024, you're short-changing 1-in-4 viewers! That cannot be considered acceptable for most sites. Alienating 1 in 4? Ludicrous. Of course, if you only care about being popular & trendy, then perhaps catering to the majority is the way to go... a half-subtle way of telling the 800x600 users to get with the times ;-) even though that's not really all that far back....

designing graphic content for 800 is insane

When I build websites for my clients most of them want 1024 x 768 but I still insists on 780 width. When asked if there are welling to loose about 20-30% of there visitor they say no. I am suprised though that the big players have move up to 1024 width (msn, yahoo e.t.c)? This is either they have statics we donot have or they are pushing the users towards buying and using the higher resolution screens. But I think it would be nice to get statics of how much of that 1024 is actually used by the browser.

When I build websites for my clients most of them want 1024 x 768 but I still insists on 780 width. When asked if there are welling to loose about 20-30% of there visitor they say no. I am suprised though that the big players have move up to 1024 width (msn, yahoo e.t.c)? This is either they have statics we donot have or they are pushing the users towards buying and using the higher resolution screens. But I think it would be nice to get statics of how much of that 1024 is actually used by the browser.

It's not just the resolution obviously, it's the size of monitors. There is a ratio that current technology is experimenting with, panoramic screens, hooking computers up to plasma televisions. Expect higher resolutions to come, but not necessarily more seen -- just more space, more energy used, and a lag between technical numbers as they clash with new diverging technology.

I set my screen at home to 1280 x 1024, the monitors at work are all set to be the same, my laptop is set to the same width but is a wide screen so has a different depth (can't remember what it is off hand). I design websites to be no wider than 770 pixils to take into account scroll bars etc, but was considering going wider, however a couple of things have occurred to me. I have a web browser on my Nokia E65 mobile phone (cellphone) which is only about 300 pixils wide, whilst the phone wraps text so I can read things properly without horizontal scroling, the rest of the graphics hand off the end, rather stupidly. With a big push on at the moment for internet on Mobile phones, and those tiny little net books I've seen about, maybe designing pages for the smaller screen is the safer option. Besides, I have seen pages which work on tables which cover 100% of the screen with an endless line of text accross the screen, I find this harder to read. A lesson that Newspapers learned a long time ago, narrow columns of text are easier to read quicker.

All things must change. Resolution is no different. I currently use a 30" Apple display with resolution of 2560 x 1600 (uncommon, I know). However, as more and more people and households begin to use their TV monitor as an their online monitor, the resolution issue becomes paramount. In addition, keep in mind that the 'resolution' stats include the entire planet. When designing for a U.S., U.K. or E.U. client, we almost ALWAYS deliver in 1024x768. When you look at the resolution stats for these specific users (the ones our clients are targeting) you'll find that the 1024 x 768 minimum resolution numbers are much higher -- closer to the 85%-95%. When it comes to mobile devises, that's a whole new animal and we design and deliver on a platform by platform basis. Hope this helps.