This maybe ok for GeekZilla but what about other non-developer sites ? I think developers in general have better setups than average users. I would still check that site is usable with lower resolutions too.

It would be best if we could all build a fluid layout sites, but unfortunately it is simply not possible (time/cost wise) using html+css

How many Geekzilla visitors though aren't savvy computer users? I'd say your audience probably skews the results. Either way, I think 1024x768 is the minimum you should design for. XP tries to set that as the default resolution so you'd have to try pretty hard to run at 800x600.

I suspect this depends on the type of site though, and how technical the audience is.

I manage a healthcare site with a similar number of visits, which gives 1024x768 (65%), 1280x1024 (13%) and then 800x600 (8%).

Here is a hint. I did not buy a high resolution monitor so your website could take up the whole damn thing.

I built my website on 1024

Well, it dependes on do you visitors are.

I assume that GeekZilla primarily have developers visiting, and they most likely run higher resolutions than "mom & dad"-users.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you using visitor stats on this website? That skews the results pretty seriously.

Who visits Geekzilla? I'm guessing mostly geeks, and I'm also guessing their peripherals are not at all representative of the general internet population at all.

Just because a monitor is 1024x768 doesn't mean that's the best size for a website. Studies have shown readers can scan a long narrow column better than a square. I've also heard someone measure conversions on 1024 and 800 widths, with 800 giving slightly better results. I want to know who has the 3840x1200 monitor set up. Nice.

Dave, I think the 3840x1200 is a triple monitor setup .. similar to one of mine