Study: 1366x768 now the most popular screen resolution

For a long time, the most popular resolution to view content on a PC monitor was 1024x768. Now a new study from StatCounter claims that size has now been overtaken in popularity by a much larger resolution, 1366x768.

StatCounter says it began recording monitor resolution statistics for the PC in March 2009. At that time the 1024x768 size was by far the most popular resolution. The company's information showed that 41.8 percent of PC users had their screens set at that viewing size.

However, over the past three years the 1024x768 resolution has been slowly losing its popularity while the 1366x768 resolution size, which had just 0.68 percent of a PC monitor's market share in March 2009, has been used by PC customers more and more. Finally, in March 2012, StatCounter claims that the 1366x768 resolution had 19.28 percent for PC monitor users compared to 18.6 percent for 1024x768.

In a email statement, Aodhan Cullen, CEO of StatCounter, said:

The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes. The screen resolution size people are using is a critical factor for developers when it comes to web design, particularly in the case of fixed width web pages.

Indeed, Microsoft has already announced that 1366x768 is the resolution that has been set by the company for full support of Windows 8's Metro features. 1024x768 as the absolute minimum resolution for Windows 8 but that size won't support all of Windows 8's Metro features.

Image via StatCounter

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Contest: Win three copies of Gettysburg: Armored Warfare

Next Story

Russian Lumia 800 videos show birds, girls and singing cops

80 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Why does the article not mention that the most common laptop resolution is 1366x768?

That's where the majority of the numbers are coming from as more consumers purchase laptops over anything else.

And still websites don't cater to widescreen users. They still stick with this fixed with BS that you see right now. Stop it web designers!

I'm using 1280 x 720 @ 60hz on some DLP. I'll never use a conventional monitor ever again. It's big screen or no screen. Go to the salvation army and buy a nice 3D Mitsubishi for about $150 (the usual issue is that the previous owners don't know what a color wheel is lol... so they trash it) Replace it for $80 and you've got an awesome cinema!!

Laslow said,
Most 720p HDTV's are actually 1366x768 native, so I'm sure that may boost the figures as well.

+1 if you look at TV's and it only says HD ready you can just about guarantee it's only 1366x768 also if you look at a lot of the big OEMs like HP dell etc etc the majority of monitors going out the door are 1366x768 on 19" and 20" monitors or if you lucky you get 1680x1050 on an 22" monitor

I love my 16:9 (1920x1080) monitor. Windows 7 looks great on it, as does Windows 8.

The lowest screen resolution I'll go down to is 1600x900, which is why I didn't buy Dell's XPS 13 ultrabook.

I hate 1366x768 on laptops, I much preferred 1440x900. When you use remote desktop, you have to set the resolution to 800x600 to be able to see the whole screen, which prevents seeing some of the bigger dialog boxes in Windows 7 / Server 2008. Sometimes you can't click on the OK button because you can't move the dialog box enough to do so.

All those telling people to upgrade their monitors... if only it was that simple! Guessing that laptops make up the majority market share now, there's no way of that happening.

The saddest part is, I looked at getting rid of my 13" Macbook a while back and going to a 15" laptop for a bigger screen res. Most laptops on offer only just matched the 13" macbook res, 1280x800, some 1366x768 - yet this was on a screen 2" bigger! Needless to say, I'm typing this on that very Macbook I was looking to get rid of.

Biohead said,
All those telling people to upgrade their monitors... if only it was that simple! Guessing that laptops make up the majority market share now, there's no way of that happening.

The saddest part is, I looked at getting rid of my 13" Macbook a while back and going to a 15" laptop for a bigger screen res. Most laptops on offer only just matched the 13" macbook res, 1280x800, some 1366x768 - yet this was on a screen 2" bigger! Needless to say, I'm typing this on that very Macbook I was looking to get rid of.

The 13" MacBook Air does 1440x900. The 13" MacBook Pro should be dead soon.

a much larger resolution, 1366x768.

That isn't much larger it just shows that the majority of people threw away there old 19" 4:3 monitor and bought a new 19" 16:9 monitor with basically the same low resolution on a wider scale...

FuhrerDarqueSyde said,
Home
Monitor 1: 1920x1080
Monitor 2: 1920x1200

Work
Monitor 1: 1920x1080
Monitor 2: 1920x1080


It took me a while to catch that 1200, xD

2 x 21inch monitors at 1050 x 1680 (portrait)

yup, thats right, portrait.

Used portrait for about 7 years now on differents machines. Widescreen wastes so much space

It's year 2012 and it saddens me that most laptops have the same vertical resolution as a laptop I purchased twelve years ago (and is now the most popular resolution?!). Seriously, 768 vertical pixels is just too damn low! I say we move to 1440x900 at least.

im really surprised the avg is still so low. is it b/c of laptops or what? i mean, even my parents use higher resolutions...

Wait, are we talking resolution of the monitor, or of what the OS settings have it set to.

Because I also would guess 1920x1080 is probably the most common monitor resolution out there, the people with poor or lesser eyesight change the resolution to something like 1024x768 so they can see it better, and the browser reports that resolution to the stats.

The reason for using higher resolutions is to fit more on the screen. But that doesn't work if programmers keep adjusting to the higher resolutions.

Programmers should program as if everybody is still using 800 x 600.

Beaux said,
The reason for using higher resolutions is to fit more on the screen. But that doesn't work if programmers keep adjusting to the higher resolutions.

Programmers should program as if everybody is still using 800 x 600.

That's easy enough to say in principle, but implementing a fluid layout based on screen size is a complex task, and usually ends up as the worst of both worlds. Static sizes are easier to do, but then what of the poor folk with 1920x1080 monitors who have to see everything with giant borders.

MightyJordan said,
1680x1050 here. Yep, I'm on one of the crazy 16:10 resolutions.

I prefer 16:10 to 16:9 to be honest. I upgraded my primary monitor last year to a 1080p monitor from 1680x1050, and I'd still prefer to have a 16:10 monitor. For a workstation, 16:9 feels too wide and narrow.

MightyJordan said,
1680x1050 here. Yep, I'm on one of the crazy 16:10 resolutions.
I too have a 1680x1050 monitor. I got it 3 years ago (before 16:9 took off), and I'm happy that I did. I hate 16:9 with a passion. Unless it's on a TV, it doesn't belong on a computer monitor. You need those extra pixels! I want to upgrade to a 1920x1200, but I don't want to lose performance in games, 1680x1050 is very easy to push for a GTX 560 Ti w/ everything on high quality.

The data reflects a continuing trend of users moving to larger screen resolution sizes

No it isn't, more like an influx of cheap low resolution laptops like the 11.6" mac book air I'm using, the 13" Mac book pro, and about 100 PC laptop models available in the 10-15" range.

(High end) phone and tablet pixel densities put laptops to shame.

thought they will be higher than that. At work i have 2x 1920x1200 at home i have 2x 1920x1080.
my first CRT was 1024x768@120Hz and that was back in 2001 but can run 1600 x 1200@75Hz if i remember right.

Scorpus said,
About time, then hopefully websites will start to move away from the 1024px barrier and expand to use more width

That's what 'Expanded Width' option is for!

Scorpus said,
About time, then hopefully websites will start to move away from the 1024px barrier and expand to use more width

Agreed, but at the same time we should be using size-oriented stylesheets. One for high-res (>1280x1024), one for low res (800x600-1280x1024) and one for mobiles. That way we get the best of all worlds

This was the biggest thing I missed when I switched from my CRT to an LCD. I used to run 1600 X 1200 on my 19" CRT but now I'm 1280 x 1024. I need to get a larger (22") LCD so that I can bump up to 1920 x 1080. Soon...

i'm not so sure that resolutions really have a 'popularity' among consumers. It's usually an after thought, or whatever <<manufacturer>> deem the most cost effective for their devices.

There are not many end users that will actively choose/discount a laptop, say, on the basis of its resolution.. I am one that will though

BGM said,
There are not many end users that will actively choose/discount a laptop, say, on the basis of its resolution..

And unfortunately that's why we still have 15.6" laptops sold with a crappy ??x768 resolution, just like 10 years ago. Such a standstill, we should have ??x900 or ??x1080 nowadays, if not even more.

Very surprised how many people still use such low resolutions. I thought once people got more used to 2MP resolutions, that they would stick with it or even go higher.

I'm working on the following at work (Dell notebook):
1x 2048x1536 (3MP) + 1x 1920x1200

At home I use (HTPC):
1x 1680x1050 + 1x 1920x1080

Next upgrade at work will be 2x 2048x1536

Since Windows 8 has it as basically a requirment, Ive been toying with the idea of changing to this resolution from 1024x786 to get use to it. Guess it is that time....


Is this a widescreen res?

htcz said,
Since Windows 8 has it as basically a requirment, Ive been toying with the idea of changing to this resolution from 1024x786 to get use to it. Guess it is that time....


Is this a widescreen res?


Indeed it is. Thats gonna suck on my monitor

htcz said,
Since Windows 8 has it as basically a requirment, Ive been toying with the idea of changing to this resolution from 1024x786 to get use to it. Guess it is that time...

Why not just use the native resolution of your monitor?

htcz said,
Since Windows 8 has it as basically a requirment, Ive been toying with the idea of changing to this resolution from 1024x786 to get use to it. Guess it is that time....


Is this a widescreen res?

eek 1024x768? Use the native resolution of your monitor, it will look much better.

Two 1920x1080 here (Desktop/laptop).
I think 1366x768 is because thats what is now default for laptops.
I take a walk around my local stores and probably 99% of them have this res.

htcz said,

Why? One of the best resolutions still out there....

All 4 of my desktops are set to it!!

I'd have to believe laptops are the biggest influence on the new results for screen sizes.

None of my 4 laptops use that size resolution. At that size, they'd more or less be useless!!

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

I actually prefer 1920x1200 but harder to come by - presumably due to 1080 being the HD resolution. It's surprising how much difference that extra 120 pixels makes.

lt8480 said,

I actually prefer 1920x1200 but harder to come by - presumably due to 1080 being the HD resolution. It's surprising how much difference that extra 120 pixels makes.


it's about aspect ratio, 16:9 is better suited for watching movies, as you'll see black bars on 16:10 all the time (unless your media player crops out extra width).

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

and I thought, 1920X1080 was the dominant resolution ...

Xahid said,

and I thought, 1920X1080 was the dominant resolution ...

Same here, it really surprises me that 1024x768 was the most popular until now.. 24% in May 2011? Seriously? Upgrade your CRT monitor, people

lt8480 said,

I actually prefer 1920x1200 but harder to come by - presumably due to 1080 being the HD resolution. It's surprising how much difference that extra 120 pixels makes.

Agree.

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

Anything higher that is still 16:9 is better.
But that's just me

2560x1440 here. SO GOOD for editing!

GS:mac

Cøi said,

Same here, it really surprises me that 1024x768 was the most popular until now.. 24% in May 2011? Seriously? Upgrade your CRT monitor, people

maybe because some companies use small 4:3 in big amounts for example it's widely used in ATM's, shops (cash registers and advertisements displays), security monitors and so on. I used to work for a company that used bunch of "graphics station" PC's with such small monitors just to operate the graphics that goes to intended output (be it SD or HD), and these PC's were always moved from place to place and monitors with time wear out or end up crashed. so cheap monitors with 1024x768 are most fitting for that role.

х.iso said,

it's about aspect ratio, 16:9 is better suited for watching movies, as you'll see black bars on 16:10 all the time (unless your media player crops out extra width).

Sure, might be a thicker black bar, but movies will still occupy the same amount of screen space as a 16:9 display

Glassed Silver said,

Anything higher that is still 16:9 is better.
But that's just me

2560x1440 here. SO GOOD for editing!

GS:mac

16:9 sucks.
2560x1600 is the best.

mrp04 said,

16:9 sucks.
2560x1600 is the best.


Nope, 16:9 all the way.
The only thing I'd prefer more would be more width, if I get all my movies in the proper cinematic format, too.

Oh yeah... Sign me up for cinemascope displays!

I have a 16:10 screen, too, but I way prefer not having to deal with those silly bars on my movies in 16:9.
And I prefer getting more width.
(My feel of how many windows I can sensibly arrange on my desktop is influenced by width, not height)

Salty Wagyu said,

Sure, might be a thicker black bar, but movies will still occupy the same amount of screen space as a 16:9 display


Yeah, but the bars are annoying nevertheless, maybe not to everyone, though.

GS:mac

lt8480 said,

I actually prefer 1920x1200 but harder to come by - presumably due to 1080 being the HD resolution. It's surprising how much difference that extra 120 pixels makes.

yes! i'm still on my old CRT at 1600x1200, but will get a 1920x1200 when it dies

х.iso said,

it's about aspect ratio, 16:9 is better suited for watching movies, as you'll see black bars on 16:10 all the time (unless your media player crops out extra width).

moot point, most movies are 2.35:1 ratio or somewhere between 16:9 and 2.35:1, will be black bars on any screen. typically only cropped or made for tv movies are 16:9, and TV shows.

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

My 27-inch screen with native resolution of 2560 x 1440 pixels disagrees.

Glassed Silver said,

Nope, 16:9 all the way.
The only thing I'd prefer more would be more width, if I get all my movies in the proper cinematic format, too.

Oh yeah... Sign me up for cinemascope displays!

I have a 16:10 screen, too, but I way prefer not having to deal with those silly bars on my movies in 16:9.
And I prefer getting more width.
(My feel of how many windows I can sensibly arrange on my desktop is influenced by width, not height)


Yeah, but the bars are annoying nevertheless, maybe not to everyone, though.

GS:mac


16:9 for tvs, 16:10 for monitors.

Cøi said,

Same here, it really surprises me that 1024x768 was the most popular until now.. 24% in May 2011? Seriously? Upgrade your CRT monitor, people

Probably the older population dying off.

Cøi said,

Seriously? Upgrade your CRT monitor, people

Don't forget that there are some people are old and can not see well. They use this resolution: 1024x768 or lower. The resolution is based on their eyesight and the text on screen is readable for them.

I have really small text on the screen no matter if it is internet or software, my brother asked me to use for my computer for a bit, I said sure, go ahead... he got on my computer and noticed the font is really small which he can not read it well.. He said to me: How can you read the small text? lol. Now, he got his iMac, his screen resolution is huge than mine. My old laptop is in the closet right now which has about the same resolution as iMac.

You can not force people who have bad eyesight to upgrade.. It's up to them to upgrade or not.

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

I was thinking, and was going to post the exact same thing, word for word.
Go 1920x1080!

psionicinversion said,
1920x1080 all the way. There's no resolution better hahaha

Absolutely wrong.

1920x1200 is better, as it's a PC resolution, not a TV one.

If you want to argue more, 2560x1440 is better than 1080p and 1920x1200 while 2560x1600 is better than 1080p, 1920x1200, and 2560x1440.

Aka, 16:10 is the most dominant resolution in terms of workspace and usability. 16:9 is the most dominant in terms of giving you the highest FoV because developers are too inept to add a FoV slider to their games.

Unfortunately, 16:10 120Hz monitors (above 1680x1050) don't exist because the market is full of idiot consumers who purchase anything with an 'HD' tag on it.

FWIW, my 1920x1200 LCD was manufactured in 2004. Yeah, this market sure changes fast..

John Callaham said,

Because those were just for Windows 7 users .the StatCounter info covers all PC operating systems

oh didnt think of that, thanks for the info.