Safari doesn't use the entire screen's width as IE - Any ideas?

[D3v1L80Y]

Sorry, but WHO are these people that view web pages in full screen?

Mostly Windows users who already suffer from "fullscreenitis".

 

[royc]

Sorry, but WHO are these people that view web pages in full screen?

I view it in full screen and ENJOY it.

 

[BBMike]

you enjoy it the same way because safari shows you the actual size of the page... IE shows you the actual size of the page but also all the empty gunk around it... i rather not see all the white speces and having other programs running so you can multitask


when it comes to computer work, widescreens are used to have more desktop space.. very efficient for multi tasking

 

[Zoolook]

I view it in full screen and ENJOY it.

OK, maybe I was being harsh, there are lots of people who can only focus on opne thing at a time, even if it is a webpage... ;D

 

[Jaygray]

Using the term "widescreen" to apply to a notebook computer is a little misleading. 5 years ago, the standard screen size for an entry level notebook computer was 14-15 inches. Today the entry level standard is 13 inches. Since they are measured diagonally, that means 2 inches have been cut off the top. For the most part, the screens have gotten smaller. This is in the interest of portability.

They aren't "widescreens"--they're "shorties" because their height is less than their width.

The MBP is a great example of this. In today's terms, the screen is large. It's available in 15" and 17" models. But many "desktop replacement" notebooks were 19" a couple years ago. And they weren't any "wider" than the MBP.

To say that you prefer a widescreen because of the additional screen space is not logical. If you want more screen space, then you should want the 2" back that were cut off the top of your monitor.

And that applies whether you are reading text or working as a graphic designer...

I'm not saying that today's notebook computers don't have a cool look to them (see the Golden Ratio link above). But if you think you got something extra, because it's a "widescreen" model, you've been mislead by the marketing.

 

[D3v1L80Y]

To say that you prefer a widescreen because of the additional screen space is not logical. If you want more screen space, then you should want the 2" back that were cut off the top of your monitor.

If screen real estate were measured in inches, then that would make sense.

However, screen real estate is measured in pixels, not inches... hence, you argument is the one that doesn't add up.
That 13" model computer (1280 x 800) today has more screen real estate than its 15" (1152 x 768) predecessors.

At home, I have two 17" Apple Studio Displays. I also have a 24" Sun Widescreen monitor. The 17 inchers are taller from top to bottom in physical height compared to the 24". However, the 24" has much more screen real estate, even if the physical height is shorter.

Now, there are some studio displays that have a higher resolution capability than a widescreen display. If that were the case, then yes, those would have more real estate than a widescreen.

It's all about the pixels... not the inches.

 

[Jaygray]

If screen real estate were measured in inches, then that would make sense.

However, screen real estate is measured in pixels, not inches... hence, you argument is the one that doesn't add up.
That 13" model computer (1280 x 800) today has more screen real estate than its 15" (1152 x 768) predecessors.

At home, I have two 17" Apple Studio Displays. I also have a 24" Sun Widescreen monitor. The 17 inchers are taller from top to bottom in physical height compared to the 24". However, the 24" has much more screen real estate, even if the physical height is shorter.

Now, there are some studio displays that have a higher resolution capability than a widescreen display. If that were the case, then yes, those would have more real estate than a widescreen.

It's all about the pixels... not the inches.

Then just imagine how many more pixels you could have if you got the 2" on the top of your screen back!

 

[Zoolook]

Then just imagine how many more pixels you could have if you got the 2" on the top of your screen back!

A square screen is not the most efficient use of space, because the human visual system does not work that way. That's why photographs, cinema screens, car windshields etc, all have something resembling a 16:9, 16:10 ration (or something close).

 

[Sawday]

I just stretched mac-forums to fill the full width of my 24" iMac screen. After reading just two pages my neck aches something terrible from all the rotation.

Surely the really great thing about wide screens is that you can have two portrait shaped pages (/spreadsheets/documents/emails) side by side. Now that's cool!

 

[djs]

As a web designer, with the advent of css you are taught that the optimum display width for a site is 800 pixels wide. Your site should be 20 pixels less to accomodate browser chrome. This is because many older laptops still run on 800 x 600 displays and you are required to view these without sidewards scrolling. Though some designers are now making their site wider to say 1024 pixels. When a site appears in the middle of the screen on larger displays it is because the designer has called auto for the right and left page margins. This is often referred to as the loo roll effect. Some sites are set to automatically expand to whatever size your screen is, as your browser dictates, the designer has called 100% in the width of the page settings. IE has a tendency to fowl up many web designs, infact there are several sites to explain why IE is so poor at rendering css websites. Tables disappear, text overlaps etc, all good fun. This being one link: http://www.positioniseverything.net
This is sure to enlighten you. Designing for IE is a nightmare. Firefox, Safari and Opera all render css much better and have better support for it. Its all down to what the designer has called for in the page setup.

 

[Alexis]

This is because many older laptops still run on 800 x 600 displays and you are required to view these without sidewards scrolling. Though some designers are now making their site wider to say 1024 pixels.

When I web design I work for 1024 wide and assume everyone has broadband. If you're waiting too long, it's your machine or your connection. It's 2008 now, not 2004.

 

[Zoolook]

When I web design I work for 1024 wide and assume everyone has broadband. If you're waiting too long, it's your machine or your connection. It's 2008 now, not 2004.

So your sites are only viewed by people in wealthy 1st world nations?

 

[Jaygray]

So your sites are only viewed by people in wealthy 1st world nations?

There are millions of people living in rural areas of the USA who do not have access to DSL or cable internet services. Satellite service is an option, but it's very expensive.

About a month ago, there was also a very active international poster on this forum with thousands of posts, who was so excited because his town was finally going to be getting DSL. Up until then,dial up was his only option. However, his posts indicate that he is very tech savvy and know quite about about hardware and programming on both PC and Mac platforms.

 

[Aptmunich]

So your sites are only viewed by people in wealthy 1st world nations?

To be fair though, I'll think you'll find most major websites have more or less adopted similar attitudes...

Lots of sites expect screens larger than 800x600 and if you see how fast things load on the iPhone over GPRS I'd say the majority of sites don't really make loading times a huge priority.