i want i want i want my calendar size...
November 27, 2009 12:25 PM Subscribe
What would be the 3 most popular widescreen resolutions to offer wallpaper at?
I offer a download-able calendar (fetish pin-up style) each year. For 2010 it was designed/formatted for widescreen monitors.
It exists in 1920 x 1200 resolution. and fits nicely on a 28" monitor. However I realize thats kinda big.
I was thinking of offering it at 1680 x 1050 for 22" widescreen monitors.
Anyone have any suggestions on what sizes they would prefer if they were looking for wallpaper, or what they think is the most popular sizes of widescreen monitors?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I prefer to offer them in a native size, rather than having users download the big one and letting their OS resize it because this is a really popular download each year of the adult and tends to be a bandwidth hog. That and instead of offering 1 image to cover 12 months, this is 1 image per month.
I offer a download-able calendar (fetish pin-up style) each year. For 2010 it was designed/formatted for widescreen monitors.
It exists in 1920 x 1200 resolution. and fits nicely on a 28" monitor. However I realize thats kinda big.
I was thinking of offering it at 1680 x 1050 for 22" widescreen monitors.
Anyone have any suggestions on what sizes they would prefer if they were looking for wallpaper, or what they think is the most popular sizes of widescreen monitors?
Thanks in advance.
P.S. I prefer to offer them in a native size, rather than having users download the big one and letting their OS resize it because this is a really popular download each year of the adult and tends to be a bandwidth hog. That and instead of offering 1 image to cover 12 months, this is 1 image per month.
1366x768 and 1280x800 are popular for laptops. Most netbooks are 1024x600.
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:36 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by qxntpqbbbqxl at 12:36 PM on November 27, 2009
Yeah my widescreen laptop (which I've been kicking myself for getting... widescreen is dumb for anything other than movies) is 1366x768.
posted by ropeladder at 12:44 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by ropeladder at 12:44 PM on November 27, 2009
Best answer: Here is the W3counter's statistics page. It shows that the top three widescreen resolutions are:
1280x800 (20.17%)
1440x900 (8.63%)
1680x1050 (5.67%)
posted by chrisamiller at 12:46 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
1280x800 (20.17%)
1440x900 (8.63%)
1680x1050 (5.67%)
posted by chrisamiller at 12:46 PM on November 27, 2009 [1 favorite]
I came here to say what Jedrek said.
If you look at the Steam hardware survey (which is admittedly biased towards gamers) the most popular resolutions are:
1280 x 1024 with 20.65% of users, aspect ratio 5:4
1680 x 1050 with 18.17% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1024 x 768 with 16.08% of users, aspect ratio 4:3
1440 x 900 with 11.13% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1280 x 800 with 7.92% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1920 x 1200 with 5.84% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1920 x 1080 with 4.94% of users, aspect ratio 16:9
So of the 16:10 resolutions, 1680 x 1050; 1440 x 900; 1280 x 800; and 1920 x 1080 are most popular.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:49 PM on November 27, 2009
If you look at the Steam hardware survey (which is admittedly biased towards gamers) the most popular resolutions are:
1280 x 1024 with 20.65% of users, aspect ratio 5:4
1680 x 1050 with 18.17% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1024 x 768 with 16.08% of users, aspect ratio 4:3
1440 x 900 with 11.13% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1280 x 800 with 7.92% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1920 x 1200 with 5.84% of users, aspect ratio 16:10
1920 x 1080 with 4.94% of users, aspect ratio 16:9
So of the 16:10 resolutions, 1680 x 1050; 1440 x 900; 1280 x 800; and 1920 x 1080 are most popular.
posted by Mike1024 at 12:49 PM on November 27, 2009
Also remember that the trend is for screens to get larger (and in the case of netbooks, smaller). It might be worth offering 1920x1080 and maybe even a netbook-friendly 1024x600.
posted by chrisamiller at 1:12 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by chrisamiller at 1:12 PM on November 27, 2009
1024 x 768 with 16.08% of users, aspect ratio 4:3
That may not be really indicative of what people use for their desktops.
I have to believe that a significant portion of 16% @ 1024 x 768 is people shifting down for the sake of a game because their vid cards can't handle the extra work.
posted by juv3nal at 1:17 PM on November 27, 2009
That may not be really indicative of what people use for their desktops.
I have to believe that a significant portion of 16% @ 1024 x 768 is people shifting down for the sake of a game because their vid cards can't handle the extra work.
posted by juv3nal at 1:17 PM on November 27, 2009
I'm apparently a minority because it's realtively hard to find 1080p desktop images.
posted by cmoj at 1:20 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by cmoj at 1:20 PM on November 27, 2009
I would also go with 1920x1080. Three of the monitors I've purchased this year are all that resolution and at different sizes - 22.5", 23", 24".
posted by wongcorgi at 1:47 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by wongcorgi at 1:47 PM on November 27, 2009
You might want to take a look at mandolux and see the resolutions they offer. They have 10 resolutions, which is nice. I have two 2560x1600 monitors and did not realize that 1024x768 is still used to such a large degree.
posted by geoff. at 2:33 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by geoff. at 2:33 PM on November 27, 2009
My monitor is also 1920 × 1080, which is the same resolution as "full HD" 1080p televisions. Like wongcorgi, I've had trouble finding desktop pictures at this resolution; 16:10 does seem to be the most popular aspect ratio for computer screens at the moment.
I wonder if 1080p screens will become more common as the line between TV and computers becomes fuzzier.
posted by Ryon at 2:39 PM on November 27, 2009
I wonder if 1080p screens will become more common as the line between TV and computers becomes fuzzier.
posted by Ryon at 2:39 PM on November 27, 2009
> I have to believe that a significant portion of 16% @ 1024 x 768 is people shifting down for the sake of a game because their vid cards can't handle the extra work.
Counter-datapoint: I shift mine down to 800x600 to play WoW (previously) and DDO (now), with all settings set to the lowest possible. My laptop was a school tool, and an upgrade isn't in the cards for a bit.
posted by Decimask at 3:10 PM on November 27, 2009
Counter-datapoint: I shift mine down to 800x600 to play WoW (previously) and DDO (now), with all settings set to the lowest possible. My laptop was a school tool, and an upgrade isn't in the cards for a bit.
posted by Decimask at 3:10 PM on November 27, 2009
Lots of people use a low resolution because of poor eyesight and most applications break under high DPI settings.
posted by zixyer at 5:03 PM on November 27, 2009
posted by zixyer at 5:03 PM on November 27, 2009
I have to believe that a significant portion of 16% @ 1024 x 768 is people shifting down for the sake of a game because their vid cards can't handle the extra work.
No way - I have a hard time convincing my parents and grandparents to go above 800x600. Once the eyesight starts to go, they want everything HUGE.
Also consider that a significant proportion of computers in the world are older than 3 or 4 years. I mean, there are still a huge number of people using CRTs. Even though the early-adopters have moved on, it takes years for the mainstream to catch up.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:54 PM on November 27, 2009
No way - I have a hard time convincing my parents and grandparents to go above 800x600. Once the eyesight starts to go, they want everything HUGE.
Also consider that a significant proportion of computers in the world are older than 3 or 4 years. I mean, there are still a huge number of people using CRTs. Even though the early-adopters have moved on, it takes years for the mainstream to catch up.
posted by chrisamiller at 8:54 PM on November 27, 2009
Apologies for the derailish nature of this.
No way - I have a hard time convincing my parents and grandparents to go above 800x600. Once the eyesight starts to go, they want everything HUGE.
...
Also consider that a significant proportion of computers in the world are older than 3 or 4 years. I mean, there are still a huge number of people using CRTs. Even though the early-adopters have moved on, it takes years for the mainstream to catch up.
It's the Steam survey which should skew both younger and more "early adopter."
Lots of people use a low resolution because of poor eyesight and most applications break under high DPI settings.
I'll grant you that a lot of UI can become more difficult to use, but most (>50%) break? Methinks that's an exaggeration unless you're talking about some very specific domain of applications.
posted by juv3nal at 12:45 AM on November 28, 2009
No way - I have a hard time convincing my parents and grandparents to go above 800x600. Once the eyesight starts to go, they want everything HUGE.
...
Also consider that a significant proportion of computers in the world are older than 3 or 4 years. I mean, there are still a huge number of people using CRTs. Even though the early-adopters have moved on, it takes years for the mainstream to catch up.
It's the Steam survey which should skew both younger and more "early adopter."
Lots of people use a low resolution because of poor eyesight and most applications break under high DPI settings.
I'll grant you that a lot of UI can become more difficult to use, but most (>50%) break? Methinks that's an exaggeration unless you're talking about some very specific domain of applications.
posted by juv3nal at 12:45 AM on November 28, 2009
This thread is closed to new comments.
1680x1050 for the 20"
1920x1200 for the 23/24"
1440x900 for the 15"
posted by jedrek at 12:32 PM on November 27, 2009