Originally Posted by LIJI Not related, but my cousin has a HUGE widescreen, 2560*1440 I think, might be bigger, and I don't see the point of having a screen that is THAT big. It takes a few seconds (!) to get from the bottom left corner (Start menu/Application menu/K Menu and Quick launch/application links) to the top right (X button). Now if you mistakenly open the wrong application it takes quite longer to close it.
That's an odd negative considering the glaring positives widescreen has.
Originally Posted by LIJI It wasn't about the fact that it's widescreen but the fact that it's huge.
Yeah, I saw a friend of mine with a monitor with such a high resolution. He took like 3 or so passes with the mouse just to get from 1 side to the other.
Actually the most common resolution within clickers, according to the visitors of my extensions list in July 2008, is 1024*768, used by 36.2% of the visitors.
Then comes 1280*1024 with 18.3%, 1280*800 with 10.9% and 1680x1050 with 9.7%.
(And btw, 800*600 with finally dead with 2.1%. )
67.9% of visitors have Normal Screens where the rest (32.1%) have Wide screens. No visitors with dual screen!
Browsers stats as of July 2008:
Firefox 3.0 (30.1 %)
Firefox 2.0 (28.0 %)
Internet Explorer 7.0 (16.3 %)
Internet Explorer 6.0 (14.5 %)
Opera 9.2 (4.8 %)
Opera 9.5 (2.7 %)
Safari 525.2 (1.4 %)
Firefox 1.0 (0.9 %)
Firefox 1.5 (0.8 %)
Opera 9.0 (0.5 %)
By Rendering Engine:
Gecko (Mozilla, Netscape) (59.8 %)
Internet Explorer (30.9 %)
Opera 53 (8.0 %)
Khtml (Konqueror, Safari) (1.4 %)
But yes, Clicking requires brain, and people with brains are unlikely to use IE.
Widescreen, 1680x1050 for me. I like the extra room for Photoshop etc, and also gaming is much better with a wide FOV, if the developer has bothered to make it that way.
Or maybe, like me, they can't be bothered to get a different browser
Is IE that bad? I mean I only have AVG on my system and never had a virus, in my systems near 2 year long life I've only formatted XP and OSX once each. And that was just for a spring clean!