Screen sizes / resolutions Options

[Wazoo]

Some more PM traffic brought into the mainstream;

I did note that the last additions really had an impact on the display on an 800x600 screen.  Unhappy at that, but ....

If you would like me to remove the changes, I would be happy to do so.

Was actually talking about the addition of the Forum FAQ to the top of the page.

That actually suprises me.
If you think it is better not being there, go ahead and cut it out.
It tends to pull the whole package together from my point of view, but I have definately been know to hold a minority view on many subjects and this could be just another one of those situations.
I am very currious as to what impact it did have on the display.

What do you think about add a single line to the "Jump To Section Links" and moving the moving the rest of it to the top of post #1 in the Forum FAQ topic?

The 2.1 Final package was released yesterday, JT advised, but no response yet.
Over in the IPB Forums there was a long discussion point about the earliest versions of the 2.1 version ... folks complaining that it appeared that 800x600 support was 'dropped' ... With folks now downloading and installing the Final version now, there are a whole new set of folks making some complaints (and not searching before posting, so instead of joining in on the 18+ page existing discussion, these 'new' folks are starting new Topics in several different Forums ... some considering the issue a bug, others complaining in a Feedback forum, others bitching in a Support forum ...)

I had toyed with adding in some java scri_pt to make a dropdown menu for 'jump to' links to these other locations, but wasn't sure of the degrade scenario for those visiting with java scri_pt turned off. Then put that off entirely based on 2.1 coming out and seeing that all this code would have to be revisited/re-installed anyway.

Then there was the portal page that was going to be "revamped" ... bitches now seem to be that the portal page set-up has more or less disappeared, apparently based on an IPD package that will be one of the next major application releases (current portal page was allegedly based on an IPD Lite)

Anyway, kind of stuck right now in deciding whether to spend any more time on whacking the existing code or waiting for JT to snag the upgrade files and getting to start all over from that scratch position to see if what exists now can actually be re-created <g>

As there is currently no tracking of this data, guess I'll try one of these poll things to see if some numbers can be developed ... how many folks 'here' are using what screen size ... (noting that another complaint is the conversion of 'old' polls to the new version has some issues <g>)

[dbiel]

Actual screen resolution I am using at work (can not be changed) is 1024 x 700

Home setting is 800 x 600 with no problem viewing any of FAQ's
occasional problem when the displayed image becomes bigger than the screen and there are no scroll bars, happens most often in the PM messages.
When it happens in the forum, the scroll bars have always been there.

This post has been edited by dbiel: Sep 15 2005, 12:02 AM

[StevenUnderwood]

My laptop is always at 1400x1050 but most of our work computers max out at 1024x768

I believe I voted HUGE as that was where I was at the time.

[btech]

I use 1024x768 at home and 1280x1024 at work.

[Jeff G.]

My main system is 800x600, as dictated by its aging hardware (I wish I could afford to replace it). In low-visibility situations (the backlight is near death), I set its Firefox to "Minimum font size: 15", which makes a bunch of lines here wrap, but I generally don't complain about that. I occasionally get stuck on a system with 640x480x16colors, but I try to get away from that ASAP. OTOH, 320x200 used to be nice for teaching Minesweeper on a 12-14" monitor (on a 386sx running Win95 beta in CGA, but I digress). (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I think my dad's main system is 1280x1024, but he has a 19" monitor and likes to tile his windows.

Actually, it takes much less CPU to achieve the same frame-rate on a given-sized (in millimeters or inches) video window at lower screen resolutions than at higher screen resolutions on the same monitor (although if the source is of high enough quality, you will lose some information when displaying fewer pixels per frame).

dbiel, ITYM 1024x768 rather than 1024x700. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[dbiel]

dbiel, ITYM 1024x768 rather than 1024x700. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Actually it is 1024 x 700 The reason is the the basic Unix structure windows in running under.
Running dumb terminal connected to a Unix Server displaying multiple window frames.
In one of the frames I open a Cubix session which creates the motif frame to hold the Citrix Shell which drives the Windows environment under NT4.0.
Then using IE connecting through the internet to Denver I open another Citrix Session which allows me to login to a windows process which opens up a secondary process where I do the majority of my work. The Denver based Citrix session actually terminates in about 15minutes. IE application can be closed but the two processes continues to run. So if you go into task manager you might find that there are zero applications running even though you are still connected to the Denver server. (If you have other local applications running ie Word etc, they will show up as applications.)
Hows that for a long way around.
Note: we are still converting from a local Unix based system to an enterprise wide internet driven Windows environment.

[Farelf]

Well, I reckon Wazoo will be real glad he started this poll ;-] (where's the "irony" emoticon?). So we have 8 votes and 9 multiple or "none of the above" cases in commenary at this point? Or have you guys actually voted one of your "cases" when there are several? (Evidently you can only vote once and I assume you can only select one size in registration). But it might be helpful to indicate if you have voted which option - or is there some esoteric net convention? Whatever, this is the real world and it is as contrary as ever (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are some hanging chads ...

This post has been edited by Farelf: Sep 15 2005, 02:23 AM

[Jeff G.]

OK, I voted "800x600". (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Wazoo]

Well, I reckon Wazoo will be real glad he started this poll ;-] (where's the "irony" emoticon?).

Well, as stated, this data isn't tracked. Modifying the log/captures would be a bit beyond what I'm supposed to be doing, so won't tempt fate there <g>

(Evidently you can only vote once and I assume you can only select one size in registration).

Yes, one vote. Requests were in for multiple answers in version 2.1 ... what apparently is delivered is multiple questions ....

But it might be helpful to indicate if you have voted which option - or is there some esoteric net convention?

Well, as the statements over in IPB ran from calling the programmer(s) names to folks simply stating that those too poor to 'keep up with progress/technology' shouldn't be allowed to remain on-line .... one forum admin claiming that almost all of her users were 800x600 contrasted by another that hadn't seen an 800x600 screen in years ... I was just reaching out a bit on the user base here ....

I'd added stuff, made some other touches, etc. ... was working on someone's ancient laptop amd noted that some of those additions caused wraps due to the added data. So was curious as to the number / ratio of folks impacted. I had talked myself out of using a java scri_pt drop-down thing, but .. noting that there already is a bunch of java scri_pt already in place ...???

[Jeff G.]

Given the 0.33% response rate, I don't think you've waited long enough. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Farelf]

... folks simply stating that those too poor to 'keep up with progress/technology' shouldn't be allowed to remain on-line ....

More credit to you Wazoo - those sods are evidently graduates of the Bill Gates School of Marketing, or maybe they've been watching "Soylent Green" again.

[spaceman]

Count me in for another 1024x768; my office machine and home system both are set to that res.

[Wazoo]

On IPB today;

IPB 2.1.1 incorporates bug fixes for all reported issues and several enhancements based on our customers' feeback over the past week.

One item of note, pertaining to the Topic;

You can now set the width of the RTE/STD editors from the ACP - individual settings for posts and PMs to assist in 800x600 compatibility.

[fredfighter]

I'm Usinf Windows 2000 Pro.

Control Panel/Display/Settings/Screen area is 1152 by 864 pixels at the moment.