Am 05.04.2015 um 02:09 schrieb tim Rowledge:
> On 04-04-2015, at 3:41 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 4:41 AM, Marcel Taeumel
>> <marcel.taeumel at student.hpi.uni-potsdam.de> wrote:
>>> Ah, nice scenario! Didn't think of that one.
>>>
>>> ...hey! Buy youself a bigger monitor! :P Speaking of that:
>>>
>>> For which resolution do we want to optimize Squeak? 800x600? 1024x768? :)
>> 800x600.
>>
> Really, that small? Are there any devices with screens that small any more? Surely the minimum likely limit is HD tv size, implying to me that a default around 1024x900 would be plausible.
>
> What reason do you have for going for smaller?
>

In my household: Two Laptops with 1280 x 800, one with 1600x900 my 
mobile with 1280x720. All having Squeak installed. We host foreign 
students and most of them have older Laptops.

I think (correct me) that three years ago a common Laptop would have 
less than HD resolution.

So yes 800x600 because expanding to fullscreen is one click while sizing 
down on a screen which doesn't show the whole window is much more hassle.
I wouldn't mind the 1024 horizontal but the 900. And what should be 
displayed on the additional pixels?

Cheers,

Herbert