http://hwstats.unity3d.com/pc/display.html
3 Likes
Hm, I tested here (5.2) and it’s working fine…
I’d say the odds are more likely that is just what many people are using. In fact, I know many people who run their desktop at 1024x768 still. Even I just changed mine in the past year from 1024x768 to 1280x800 or whatever it is now. Any higher just seems like overkill for no reason to me. Although I do have my work laptop using 1600x900 because I have a second 24" monitor. But yeah anyway I highly doubt Unity itself is causing 1024x768 to be the 4th most common resolution. Especially when stats for web browser show the same. Actually I think the percentage is even higher for those.
I’m having the problem with 5.2 not respecting native resolutions in a standalone build. It forces itself to 1024x768. I’m also having the issue where anything except native resolution results in the screen not being properly resized which apparently (hopefully!) will be fixed in 5.2.1.
EDIT: Annnnd… apparently they’ve released 5.2.1 and it’s not fixed. 
I’m not on my regular system right now so I haven’t had a chance to check but the word is the screen issues are still a problem.
1 Like
You can never see too much code. 
I’m on 1920x1080, and would be using 1920x1200 if there were any 16:10 monitors that didn’t use IPS panels. (IPS glow is annoying.)
–Eric
1 Like
… if there weren’t 4k monitors readily available these days, right?
That doesn’t really help, since 4K is still 16:9. 16:10 gives you more vertical space. With 4K you just get sharper text, not more of it. (Excluding the use of tiny fonts, of course, since that’s dumb. )
–Eric
1 Like
The 4K monitors that interest me are typically far larger (28") than their 1080p counterparts (22" or 24"), so I’d get more text that was also sharper if I were to make the jump. I’ve got a 27" 1440p monitor at work (plus a pair of smaller 1080s), which is quite nice.
I have 27" already, which is a little too wide to be comfortable. I’d really just rather have more vertical space. I had a 16:10 screen and preferred the size, but as I mentioned, IPS glow is just too annoying.
–Eric
The older I get, the larger my screen fonts get.
8 Likes
Have you tried a monitor turned 90-degrees?
4 Likes
The previous monitor did in fact rotate, but the current one doesn’t. I don’t see why a decent 16:10 monitor is so much to ask for…
–Eric
2 Likes
I’d much rather everything standardized. Makes everything easier in the world.
1 Like
Sure, but isn’t 16:9 actually a really odd standard for a computer monitor? Most of what we use computers for are documents of some form or another, and they’re generally taller rather than wider.
2 Likes
I use a 3440X1440 34" IPS Dell, doesn’t seem to have much IPS glow unlike an Ilyama 27" I had before it… Personally I don’t find it too wide, in fact I think it could do with a couple more inches vertically and horizontally.
The original point was to split the screen up, but I found myself enjoying more real estate. So I kept a 1080P 24" TN at the side for watching NF and testing…
Its all very well saying 1024 is the 4th most popular, but with only 7% of the market … and you’ll notice that many resolutions that follow after that as less popular are generally higher than 1024. You should look at how many resolutions are AT LEAST 1024 or some other baseline like 1280. Then you’ll probably find that supporting anything below 1280 accounts for like 10% of the audience or something.
I use a 21:9 (and only 25"), now imagine yourself using this! haha
I’m pretty comfortable tho, my only annoyance is that the pixels are too small and I miss a lot of clicks!