1366×768px overtakes 1024×768px as the most popular screen resolution worldwide

It all depends on the target market - for example if you are making a site for gamers, you should look at the Steam HW survey, where 1920x1080 is used by 25% of people. 1366x768 is a distant second with 15%. Source: <a href="http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey" rel="nofollow">http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey</a>

Sad that our pixel density hasn't gone up since the 90s, really. Tv ruins people with 42" screens at only 1080p. I'm glad to see that Apple is showing people that pixel density matters more than resolution alone, and I await their high-density MacBook displays. Hopefully they'll be out this fall, but a quick survey of the 4K-rezo landscape suggests that they'll likely have to wait another year for prices to drop :/

I'm not surprised. Only the "high end" laptops have a resolution that's not 1366x768 in Romania.<p>I used to have a 14" Dell with a 1600×1200 resolution back in 2008. But in 2012 you really have to pay extra for something like that.<p>15.6 inch and 1366x768 is just incredible considering the 4 inch iPhone is 960x640 nowadays.

1024x768 is still the best window-size for browsing (and most other tasks as well) in my opinion. Don't get any silly ideas of designing a web page for wider than 1024 pixels (the only thing I miss out today is in the "worst" case ads).

By the way, I'm using 11 inch mba as my main dev machine and here's how to take advantage of 16x9 displays if you're using emacs:<p>- you can split your emacs frame into multiple columns with C-x 3 (and balance them with C-x +), this way you can see two or even three files side by side.<p>- you can use emacs follow-mode which creates one virtual window split into multiple buffers, which is very useful for 768px high displays.

It's amazing how segmented the market has become. A few years ago, everyone pretty much had 1024x768 or 1280x1024.<p>Now, just about all cheap laptops are 1366x768. Everything else is all over the map!

I am going to be so angry if[0] this makes web devs start designing for grids that have to be 1300px wide to work. I don't fullscreen anything (too wide for the height, and too wide for the font size!), and while the majority of webpages look just fine in a ~600px wide browser window, possibly after right-scrolling to put the content column in the window, rarely does a day go by that I don't have to tear off a tab and widen it---not to make it look good, but to make it usable <i>at all</i>. Like that crappy Bump page posted here earlier today: if you view it in a narrow window, even if you right-scroll the window the content is sliced at window-width, with the page absolutely unusable at anything less than my full screen width. I don't know if there's anyone out there still on an 800x600 resolution, but there's a significant portion of the web that they actually can't use in any way. It doesn't have to be that way!<p>[0]Realistically, I know it's "when", but I'll stick with the denial a little longer.

I felt like sharing this info here because it matters to me more than pixel density or aspect ratio.<p>It turns out that GPUs like the popular Intel integrated gfx chips requires each lines of your framebuffer to be 64 bytes aligned. And yet, when using a 1366 wide resolution in 32bit per pixel mode, the visible length in bytes of a framebuffer is 5464, which is not a multiple of 64.<p>The operating system circumvent the problem by allocating 5504 bytes for each line of the framebuffer instead of 5464. It represent a loss of 30KB of unused memory.<p>Anyway, you're probably think I'm mad to care about those things instead of pixel density or aspect ratio, and 30KB is definitely meaningless compared to the memory footprint of a complete framebuffer (which is around 4-5MB). But you know these people who can't stand having the volume bar set to an odd number on their television set ? I'm exactly like them, why in hell would you not use an horizontal resolution which is not a multiple of 64 ?

screen resolution is a useless number for web developers, browser viewport dimensions are what matters.

I'm not sure that the data provided by StatCounter is representative of global trends. They're stat counters are installed on 3 million sites which sounds like a lot. But if you take a look at the distribution of those sites globally they're not evenly spread.<p>You can take a look at their sample size per country here: <a href="http://gs.statcounter.com/sample-size/StatCounterGlobalStatsJan12_SampleSizeCountryBreakdown.csv" rel="nofollow">http://gs.statcounter.com/sample-size/StatCounterGlobalStats...</a>

What about tablets? How does the iPad's 2048 x 1536 resolution work out in the real world? I assume web sites don't appear in a 1:1 pixel ratio, or a 960 pixel wide site would appear tiny in the browser.<p>I use the 960 grid from <a href="http://960.gs/" rel="nofollow">http://960.gs/</a> when I build a site, and I find that sites on my 1680 x 1050 monitor look great at 960 pixels wide.<p>I would assume that sticking with a 960 pixel wide grid is still optimal, but I'd love to hear people's points of view.

From the stats page CSV:<p><pre><code> 19.28% 1366x768 18.6% 1024x768 12.95% 1280x800 7.49% Other 7.48% 1280x1024 6.6% 1440x900 5.09% 1920x1080 3.83% 1600x900 3.63% 1680x1050 + others from the csv file below 3% </code></pre> That resolution is going to dominate for a while, until retina -style screens make an influence on the mass market.<p>I recently moved from 1280x800 to 1440x900 myself.

What's the most popular monitor size nowadays? 20"?

Another noob article on Hacker News. Dismissing mobile screens in this count? How ignorant!<p>Calling it responsive design? Do your job and show the website on any device. You noobs are embarrassing. PHP blows, which is probably why you suck so bad.

"...(*excluding mobile)"<p>Why exclude mobile?

Do these numbers include the iPad?<p>It seems silly to call the iPad a mobile browser. A website for a phone screen scaled up to the iPad usually looks ridiculous.

Wonderful. But its really the <i>window</i> that matters, right?

Wow, I will never be the same person again...Earth shattering

the marketing wizards dictating design feel consumers want screens with a letterbox presentation, if it's square it's preceived as old, low-def and undesirable.

Laptops taking over desktop PCs...

i miss 1400x900 :( it was a lot nicer to use in a laptop than 1366x768

anyone notice the particularly narrow content pane?

WTF? How did this bizarre resolution even become an accepted "standard"? It emerged with plasma TVs of five years ago or so, and was baffling then. After that, it started showing up on netbooks. Now it's the most common?

So does that mean that everybody's on a 13" macbook?