Slightly OT - but please help

What screen res do you run at?

  • 800x600

    Votes: 8 17.8%
  • 1024x768

    Votes: 24 53.3%
  • 1152x864

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • 1280x768

    Votes: 3 6.7%
  • 1280x1024

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • Bigger!

    Votes: 6 13.3%

  • Total voters
    45

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Hopefully the Meister will let me get away with posting this here, but i need some responses asap :D

I'm finishing off the last bits of the "Game Buddy" Mk III and i need to know the common screen resolutions of gamblers! I just bought myself a nifty 19" monitor that goes up to 1440x900 (sooo cheap now!) and i just wanted to see what the commonest res is these days.

Much appreciated

Simmo!
 

Casinomeister

Forum Cheermeister
Staff member
Just to give you some stats for the overall site:

1024x768 - 51.10%
1280x1024 - 21.99%
800x600 - 12.63%
Other - 5.79%
1152x864 - 4.53%
1600x1200 - 3.88%
640x480 - 0.04%

We'll see how this pans out in the poll :D

And for those of you who don't know what your screen resolution is - go to "start" "control panel" "display" and then click the "settings" tab. It should tell you what your screen resolution is.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Slotster! said:
Argh! I clicked the wrong one. I'm actually 1024x768, not the one I clicked. Idiot.
What did you click? I'll change it.


CM: Thanks for those stats :)
 

BubbleG

Registered
I have the bad boy of monitors :))

24'' Dell (2405FPW)

1920 x 1600 resolution or 4 times poker screens, winamp and msn without any overlap all on screen at the same time...... This is probably the best thing i've ever bought!!
 

AussieDave

Dodgy whacko backstabber
Simmo,

The rule of thumb these day used by web dev's is 1024x768, although some are starting to implement 1280x768. If it's browser base you could always implement browser sniffing and then use css's for the apropriate screen sizes.
 

nafanny29

Dormant account
For Web browsing, and casinos i use 1024x768, for poker 1600x1200. Dell 2001 here, not quite the mighty 2405 BubbleG but not bad:thumbsup:
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
Trezz said:
Simmo,

The rule of thumb these day used by web dev's is 1024x768, although some are starting to implement 1280x768. If it's browser base you could always implement browser sniffing and then use css's for the apropriate screen sizes.
I agree with the browser sniffing - I did that on Got2Bet.

However, I disagree about the rule of thumb - this should still be 800x600 even if the majority of users are now on 1024x768 - for the simple reason that you cannot ignore 12-15% of users who haven't moved up in resolution - it's not because of older monitors, it's usually because of failing eyesight - or perhaps slightly older notebooks (like one of mine). These people typically have a bit more play money too.

I'm on 1280x1024 - it's fine for me, even 1024x768 looks small to me now. But a site developed for 800x600 still looks fine on my screen.

At the very least, you must find a way to support those users who still use 800x600 - this is far more important than trying to support the 10-12% of users using Firefox.
 

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Trezz said:
Simmo,

The rule of thumb these day used by web dev's is 1024x768, although some are starting to implement 1280x768. If it's browser base you could always implement browser sniffing and then use css's for the apropriate screen sizes.
Thanks Trezz

Actually I've built it to allow user configurability and it integrates into the Active Desktop so in theory we'll be okay. However, i am going to set a default setting for the elements to fit within which can then be shuffled around by the user.
 

suzecat

Dormant account
tim5ny said:
1024X768 is prolly the most common these days. 800X600 is so 90's!
1998 actually! But of course, if you want to upgrade my 90s monitor, I won't object!:D
 

vinylweatherman

You type well loads
CAG
MM
Merciless

I still play on a top of the range :D Packard Bell CLUB77. I have a monster 9Gb hard drive, and an equally impressive 501Mhz Celeron processor. I have the most wicked 4Mb shared graphics memory, with an upgraded driver that allows an extra 30Mb of my enormous 384Mb RAM to be taken over for graphics. To complete this awesome kit I have the very latest in Windows 98SE which enables me to boot up in the time it takes the tea to brew.

Unfortunately, I am let down by a clearly bottom of the range NTL cable Broadband connection that can take longer to navigate a single Casinomeister thread than it can to get paid by Crystal Palace after beating a bonus:lolup:

I have considered the merits of an upgrade, and after much soul searching I decided to purchase a 40Gb hard drive so that I can cope with the lack of self control over at Microgaming over the diet of its software. My monitor can go up to 1024 x 768 at most, and this is what I now use much of the time. The shared graphics, astonishingly, can go higher.

For time spent with family, I bought a DELL Dimension PC with XP and a processor of around 2GHz - IT'S NO FASTER ON THE CASINOS, (with a dial-up connection). For all those CS reps who say my PC is "too old", I say "rubbish".

How about an Alienware 5Ghz and 1Gb dedicated 3D graphics? I doubt Halloweenies will count my measly 1000 coin feature win up any faster, I will still have the reels spinning aimlessly for 30 seconds each go, the dealer will take a coffee break before dealing my cards at Blackjack, and I bet will still push all my 20's and beat anything less.

The Game Buddy actually works fine for me on this, pity that the BelleRock Buddy will have none of it!!!!
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
tim5ny said:
1024X768 is prolly the most common these days. 800X600 is so 90's!
Gee thanks.
 

spearmaster

RIP Ted
vinylweatherman said:
I still play on a top of the range :D Packard Bell CLUB77. I have a monster 9Gb hard drive, and an equally impressive 501Mhz Celeron processor. I have the most wicked 4Mb shared graphics memory, with an upgraded driver that allows an extra 30Mb of my enormous 384Mb RAM to be taken over for graphics. To complete this awesome kit I have the very latest in Windows 98SE which enables me to boot up in the time it takes the tea to brew.

Unfortunately, I am let down by a clearly bottom of the range NTL cable Broadband connection that can take longer to navigate a single Casinomeister thread than it can to get paid by Crystal Palace after beating a bonus:lolup:

I have considered the merits of an upgrade, and after much soul searching I decided to purchase a 40Gb hard drive so that I can cope with the lack of self control over at Microgaming over the diet of its software. My monitor can go up to 1024 x 768 at most, and this is what I now use much of the time. The shared graphics, astonishingly, can go higher.

For time spent with family, I bought a DELL Dimension PC with XP and a processor of around 2GHz - IT'S NO FASTER ON THE CASINOS, (with a dial-up connection). For all those CS reps who say my PC is "too old", I say "rubbish".

How about an Alienware 5Ghz and 1Gb dedicated 3D graphics? I doubt Halloweenies will count my measly 1000 coin feature win up any faster, I will still have the reels spinning aimlessly for 30 seconds each go, the dealer will take a coffee break before dealing my cards at Blackjack, and I bet will still push all my 20's and beat anything less.

The Game Buddy actually works fine for me on this, pity that the BelleRock Buddy will have none of it!!!!
Nothing wrong with your Celeron at all, that's plenty of power for casino gaming. The only other recommendation I would make is to up your RAM a bit, since Win98SE eats up 256MB upon loading...
 

AussieDave

Dodgy whacko backstabber
spearmaster said:
However, I disagree about the rule of thumb - this should still be 800x600 even if the majority of users are now on 1024x768 - for the simple reason that you cannot ignore 12-15% of users who haven't moved up in resolution - it's not because of older monitors, it's usually because of failing eyesight - or perhaps slightly older notebooks (like one of mine). These people typically have a bit more play money too.

I'm on 1280x1024 - it's fine for me, even 1024x768 looks small to me now. But a site developed for 800x600 still looks fine on my screen.

At the very least, you must find a way to support those users who still use 800x600 - this is far more important than trying to support the 10-12% of users using Firefox.
Fair point spear, I tend to forget that people using 800x600 is maybe because of vision problems or becuase of slightly older systems :thumbsup:

(oops edited, knew there was a reason why I should read original replies)

Me I tend to stick with 1024x768 more so becuase I use to dev on anyway, switching back and forth is a pain.
 
Last edited:

Simmo!

Moderator
Staff member
Pinababy69 said:
Gee thanks.
Pina - come join us in the 21s century - you won't regret it :D


Trezz said:
Your dev on this sound impressive let me know when it's out sure like to have a look at it.
Of course - its actually a whole framewrok i've developed that will (soon) allow people to create "themes" for the Active Desktop and "modules" that can be added to the themes. Its developed into quite a hefty project now - typical me...start down one road and check out all the sideroads - lol.

Still a bit to do but hopefully not too far away from a demo.
 

Pinababy69

RIP Lisa
Pina - come join us in the 21s century - you won't regret it
Not so sure about that Simmo, I'm just an old-fashioned girl at heart. You know that saying about old dogs..... :)
 
Top