Make the minimum resolution for the game 800x600?

[cybersphinx]

Well, the question isn't so much "who doesn't care about 640x480?" but "who does?"

[Kamaze]

800x600 should be fine, even for 95% of all netbooks (except the very first generation of EEE-PCs). Typical netbook screen has 1024x600.

[r4pture]

Another vote for 800x600

[javierkaiser]

+1 for 800x600

[mcdebugger]

do netbooks really have enough power to play warzone? I have heard that you can even play youtube videos well

My friend is watching HD video on Atom-based netbook (1.6 Ghz).
Default screen resolution is 1024x600 (that is bigger than 800x600) (don't remember it's screen dimensions).
I have old PC (Celeron Mendocino ~300 Mhz with Intel integrated graphics) and I really want to try playing warzone2100 without glitches on it. Now it seems to be slideshow (have no graphics acceleration)

Not sure about resolution.
At the one hand keeping 640x480 will not break compatibility. But from another side the hardware running with this resolution is so rare now and changing default res to 800x600 may help to modern wz.
So I'll vote for 800x600

[Terminator]

Agree. WinXp the lowest resolution is 800x600. Most users have XP. & I think everyone minimum res. is 1024(I think its standard right now).
I my case - I use 1280 both at desktop and in games.
I vote for the default res, but I think support of 640 should be left, if in future would be any objections if wont than cut it off.

[cybersphinx]

I vote for the default res, but I think support of 640 should be left

The problem is, our current gui doesn't support scaling, so once we change the menus to use 800x600, they won't fit in 640x480 anymore. That's the whole point of this thread, to find out how many users cannot use the game if 640x480 isn't supported anymore.

[KukY]

Any progress on this?

[Kamaze]

With the raising requirements for 3.0 I see no problem with raising the screen resolution even to 1024x800. People who run WZ with a lower resolution (for hardware reasons) will probably have no chance to run it at all then.

[KukY]

With the raising requirements for 3.0 I see no problem with raising the screen resolution even to 1024x800. People who run WZ with a lower resolution (for hardware reasons) will probably have no chance to run it at all then.

Exactly.

[Saberuneko]

With the raising requirements for 3.0 I see no problem with raising the screen resolution even to 1024x800. People who run WZ with a lower resolution (for hardware reasons) will probably have no chance to run it at all then.

Exactly.

1024x768... please, not everybody has panoramic screens...

[Zarel]

...erm, that eliminates a lot of fun usecases, though. =/

[crux]

is the plan still to make the game 800x600 as a minimum?

[Zarel]

Unstickied. We seem to have agreed that the majority of users here seem to want less freedom no support for 640x480.

[Pangaea]

Looks like it has been decided already, but just to add some statistics to it...

http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

800x600 is only 3.27%. 640x480 is outside the top 10. The least in the list has 1.67%.

I'd hazard a guess that virtually nobody uses 640x480 any more. The relatively high use of 800x600 is probably virtually solely down to netbooks, which are rarely used for gaming anyway. Apart from Tetris and card games perhaps

Don't think you would be stepping on too many toes if you made the minimum resolution 1024x768.