How do you guys deal with different resolutions in your apps? Keeping everything auto-sizable seems to be a hell of a lot of work, especially if dealing with lots of checkboxes, edit fields, Buttons. Keeping your app on a tiny 640x480 window so that even the most retarded upgrader can use your app seems silly too. Screwing people while just ignoring every different resolutions and just sizing everything for a 1158x768 (example) is kind of not good either.

Best solutions seems to be the auto-sizable app.. but isn't this just overkill?
Posted on 2003-12-16 17:09:25 by JimmyClif
I design everything so it is possible to display it completely on 640x480 but is best on 800x600. When I do the actual work I use 1024x768 but check the look at different resolutions as I run my test OSes each at a different resolution. What I find more interesting is whether people take into account different color depths or just assume that everyone is using true color.
Posted on 2003-12-16 17:52:52 by donkey
I think most people run True Color.. I wouldn't bother too much about that ;)

640x480 is just so - tiny... I think I'll stop supporting that one. I mean - Honestly ! Who runs a 640x480 resolution nowadays anyway? And the one who does probably also still runs Win 3.1 and therefore doesn't deserve it anyhow. :ugh:

800x600 hardly slides in there... Maybe it's my fault.. I run 1280x1024 constantly. Maybe it's also a problem of trying to put too many controls in one Window?

:notsure: I dunno.
Posted on 2003-12-17 23:15:17 by JimmyClif
800x600 is the best for me.
Posted on 2003-12-18 11:56:06 by Vortex
Afternoon, JimmyClif.

I think people usually go for:
800*600 for 15" monitors.
1024*768 for 17" monitors.
1280*1024 for >= 19" monitors.

I mainly use a 17 incher:tongue: .

Like donkey, I switch between 800*600 and 1280*1024 just for testing purposes.

Posted on 2003-12-18 16:56:38 by Scronty
Weird, I use 1152 x 864 through I am using 17inch.
Posted on 2003-12-19 23:03:01 by roticv
i prefer 1280 x 1024 in a 17 inch. With the monitor menu i've used every single pixel to strech to maximum width/height.
Posted on 2003-12-20 02:46:39 by Bit7
I have 17-inch CRT, I design for 1024x768 (most clients have laptops), but 800x600 is also possible - the app fits precisely on screen (has a fixed window width). I use a custom-draw method, so everything's just one window and resizes are internally done - all child windows' size gets calculated and resized, the painting thread will do what's left.
I draw graphics in 1024x768, and I code in 800x600 - I am somehow more productive this way. Always 32-bit depth, drawing in 16-bit is tricky.
Posted on 2003-12-20 04:20:23 by Ultrano
I sometimes write applications with auto-sizing windows. This is the case with Hyrule Magic (a program for you Zelda 3 freaks out there :P). This even has support for 8-bit screen modes. I've got it to work fine on Windows 3.11 too :alright: I didn't write this program in assembler, though :(
Posted on 2003-12-20 06:36:33 by Sephiroth3
Sephiroth, that app looks pretty cute - I'm in love with Zelda 3 too :)

As for the poll, it differs a lot, depending on what I'm coding. It wouldn't make much sense to make a thing like winamp dynamically sizeable :), while a hardcoded-size text editor or CAD app would be plain silly. For apps where sizing doesn't make sense, I try to keep each dialog/window comfortable on 800x600, even though I run 1280x1024 myself. It's my experience that dialogs/windows larger than this tend to be 'confusing' - I'll rather add some tabs or other means of structurization.

Most of my GUI stuff doesn't need graphics, and if I do throw in a 24bit logo or whatever I could care less if it's not displayed correctly on 8bpp resolutions. For more graphical stuff, I do 32bpp and let windows handle the conversion if necessary.

For web stuff, I aim at 1024x768 and try to keep the graphics at a minimum. I hate stuff like flash, even if it's "well done".
Posted on 2003-12-20 21:00:58 by f0dder