[rahimnathwani]

Years ago I had an LG 32" wide-screen CRT TV. I chose that model because it had a VGA port. It advertised a resolution of 640x480.

I was thrilled when my computer let me choose a resolution of 848x480, and it worked perfectly.

Back in those days, the web was usable at that resolution.

[mikepurvis]

It still basically should be, so long as well-designed sites give you the "small screen"/mobile layout.

Even apart from that, a lot of laptops still have 1280x800 as the default resolution, and that's only double the width of 640x480. Honestly, I'd actually be more worried about OS and browser chrome eating up the space than websites themselves being unusable.

[swores]

> "It still basically should be, so long as well-designed sites..."

I believe that their point wasn't that "the web" has intrinsically changed, it was that too many sites are not well designed in this respect.

edit: they actually replied just before me and it seems that wasn't their point, but it would be my point (though I personally don't care about being able to use such a low resolution).

[rahimnathwani]

The 480 height is the bigger issue.

Try browsing on your phone in landscape mode.

[mikepurvis]

Yes, fair, and that's also when OS/browser chrome takes an even bigger bite out of the viewport.