A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (forpanopticlick)



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old January 24th 15, 10:14 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
John Hasler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

Mayayana writes:
But if you're allowing script (or worse, Flash) you're leaving other
doors open, including the risk of driveby download tracking.


If you allow script (or Flash) you are allowing the sites you visit to
*run code on your computer*. How could you possibly expect to retain
any anonymity when doing that no matter what other measures you take?

Of course if you don't allow script you identify yourself as one of the
very small minority of users who do not allow script...
--
John Hasler

Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
Ads
  #17  
Old January 24th 15, 10:34 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

In article , Sage wrote:

not really and you're also assuming only one screen.


What does panopticlick.eff.org report when you have more than 1 screen?


it's reporting the pixel dimensions of one display, which i assume is
the main display (they're both the same size) but i did not test it
further.
  #18  
Old January 24th 15, 10:44 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
JJ[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 744
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:49:06 +0000 (UTC), Madison James wrote:
I want to be as neutral as possible when posting to political forums.
I use Panopticlick as my test of my browser fingerprint.

I am working on changing that fingerprint, and one change is my reported
"Screen Size and Color Depth"

Here are all the viable screen sizes and color depths
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard

Just before I log into the political forums, I want to temporarily
set mine to the most common there is out there today.

But what is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth today?

Is it "1024x768x24" or "1366x768" or "1280x1024" or ?


Color depth would be 24/32-bit for most systems (16,777,216 colors).

Screen size would be 1366x768 (widescreen format).

Screen size stats:
http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=17

Screen size and color depth stats (old):
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
  #19  
Old January 24th 15, 10:51 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Sage[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (forpanopticlick)

Mayayana wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:49:53 -0500:

You're also concerned with privacy from
govt agencies? If so, and if you go so far as to install Tor, I wonder
why you enable javascript.


You do realize that even the Tor Browser Bundle was forced to enable
javascript, by default?

Unfortunately, it's like driving a car without wheels because you're
worried that the serial number on the wheels will give you away.

Sure. But, some things, like javascript, are basically required for
most political web forums to work properly.

  #20  
Old January 24th 15, 10:56 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Jolly Roger[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 295
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (forpanopticlick)

On 2015-01-24, Sage wrote:
Mayayana wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 15:49:53 -0500:

You're also concerned with privacy from
govt agencies? If so, and if you go so far as to install Tor, I wonder
why you enable javascript.


You do realize that even the Tor Browser Bundle was forced to enable
javascript, by default?

Unfortunately, it's like driving a car without wheels because you're
worried that the serial number on the wheels will give you away.

Sure. But, some things, like javascript, are basically required for
most political web forums to work properly.


Absolutely. And that's more true today than ever before. Javascript
is essential for many web sites out there.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR
  #21  
Old January 24th 15, 11:34 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Gene E. Bloch[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,485
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

On 24 Jan 2015 17:08:12 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-01-24, Mayayana wrote:

| What do you mean by posting to political forums?
| If you're posting comments then what does your
| screen size matter?
|
| Anonymity is enhanced by having a commonly-used profile, and your
| profile includes screen size and colour depth as reported by the browser.
|


Do you think you could include an attribution line, as is customary
on Usenet?


He's been asked to do so before...

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
  #22  
Old January 24th 15, 11:41 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

| Unfortunately, it's like driving a car without wheels because you're
| worried that the serial number on the wheels will give you away.
|
| Sure. But, some things, like javascript, are basically required for
| most political web forums to work properly.
|

Yes, and as John Hasler noted, the number of people
who don't enable javascript has gone way down, so
that's another form of ID. I use two browsers: Pale
Moon with script disabled, no cookies, no frames, no
3rd-party files, Firefox userAgent. And Firefox with
NoScript and with session cookies allowed. I also use
a HOSTS file to block the majority of ads and tracking
beacons in both browsers. I use FF only for the relatively
rare (for me) times that I need to enable cookies or
script. But I'm only looking for basic privacy. I'm not
trying to hide from the NSA in particular, and I live in
the US so I'm not trying to sneak onto the Internet.
My approach might not be so good for you. On the
other hand, if I were in your spot I think I'd use a
different browser for everything except the political
sites.

As for javascript itself, it varies a lot. You might
try experimenting. I almost never need to enable it.
But if you use gmail, facebook, or other high functioning
sites you really can't avoid it.




  #23  
Old January 24th 15, 11:55 PM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Don Phillipson[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,185
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

"Madison James" wrote in message
...

I want to be as neutral as possible when posting to political forums.
I use Panopticlick as my test of my browser fingerprint.
. . .
Just before I log into the political forums, I want to temporarily
set mine to the most common there is out there today.

But what is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth today?

Is it "1024x768x24" or "1366x768" or "1280x1024" or ?


1. The Panopticlick web site claims to promote privacy through
anonymity (suggesting browser configurations can be used to
identify posters, and offering to measure the user's.)
2. Screen size and colour depth are configured for monitors
(hardware): browsers are software.
--
Don Phillipson
Carlsbad Springs
(Ottawa, Canada)


  #24  
Old January 25th 15, 12:22 AM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
John Hasler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 62
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

Don Phillipson writes:
Screen size and colour depth are configured for monitors (hardware):
browsers are software.


What screen size and colour depth you use need not be the same as what
your browser reports.

If I wanted to post secretly to political sites I think that I might
dedicate a machine to that purpose, booting it from a CD each time and
using Tor. But then if I wanted to post anywhere secretly I would not
discuss my intentions here (or anywhere else).
--
John Hasler

Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
  #25  
Old January 25th 15, 12:24 AM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

| 1. The Panopticlick web site claims to promote privacy through
| anonymity (suggesting browser configurations can be used to
| identify posters, and offering to measure the user's.)
| 2. Screen size and colour depth are configured for monitors
| (hardware): browsers are software.

It's just one more set of identifying bits of data that
are possible to collect if script is enabled. Those
details have been available as part of the scripting
document object model since the early days. I don't
know exactly what's in the W3C standard, but here's
an example of what one can return for IE:

'-------- save the following in a file ending with .vbs
' ---- and then run that file to see a demo.

Set IE = CreateObject("InternetExplorer.Application")

ie.Navigate "about:blank"
Do Until ie.ReadyState = 4
Loop
With IE.document.parentwindow.screen
s = "Available height: " & .availHeight & vbCrLf
s = s & "Available width: " & .availWidth & vbCrLf
s = s & "Buffer depth: " & .bufferDepth & vbCrLf
s = s & "color depth: " & .colorDepth & vbCrLf
s = s & "Height: " & .height & vbCrLf
s = s & "Update interval: " & .updateInterval & vbCrLf
s = s & "Width: " & .width
End With

MsgBox s
ie.Quit
Set ie = Nothing


  #26  
Old January 25th 15, 12:56 AM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Ken Blake[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,318
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:34:38 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2015 17:08:12 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-01-24, Mayayana wrote:

| What do you mean by posting to political forums?
| If you're posting comments then what does your
| screen size matter?
|
| Anonymity is enhanced by having a commonly-used profile, and your
| profile includes screen size and colour depth as reported by the browser.
|


Do you think you could include an attribution line, as is customary
on Usenet?


He's been asked to do so before...



....but he prefers to get killfiled by more and more of us here.

  #27  
Old January 25th 15, 01:04 AM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Gene E. Bloch[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,485
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 16:56:48 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 14:34:38 -0800, "Gene E. Bloch"
wrote:

On 24 Jan 2015 17:08:12 GMT, Huge wrote:

On 2015-01-24, Mayayana wrote:

| What do you mean by posting to political forums?
| If you're posting comments then what does your
| screen size matter?
|
| Anonymity is enhanced by having a commonly-used profile, and your
| profile includes screen size and colour depth as reported by the browser.
|

Do you think you could include an attribution line, as is customary
on Usenet?


He's been asked to do so before...


...but he prefers to get killfiled by more and more of us here.


I find some of his posts interesting and of value...

So my ellipsis wasn't meant to imply quite the same completion as yours
:-)

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
  #28  
Old January 25th 15, 01:39 AM posted to alt.os.linux,alt.windows7.general,comp.sys.mac.system
Sage[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 70
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (forpanopticlick)

Don Phillipson wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 17:55:23 -0500:

2. Screen size and colour depth are configured for monitors (hardware):
browsers are software.


Realize that the Tor Browser Bundle Firefox reports different numbers
(on purpose) than does the Mozilla Firefox browser, both of which
are Firefox.

So, it's all in the software WHAT it reports.

  #29  
Old January 25th 15, 01:54 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
drek
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

On Sat, 24 Jan 2015 00:49:06 +0000 (UTC), Madison James


But what is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth today?

Is it "1024x768x24" or "1366x768" or "1280x1024" or ?


One source lists 1366x768 as tops by a large margin. Also available
stats by OS, Browser, etc.

Worldwide, desktop only.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-r...-201410-201412
Map view pops up stats for each country.
http://gs.statcounter.com/#desktop-r...410-201412-map
  #30  
Old January 25th 15, 03:50 AM posted to alt.windows7.general
Mayayana
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,438
Default What is the most common Screen Size and Color Depth (for panopticlick)

| ...but he prefers to get killfiled by more and more of us here.
|
| I find some of his posts interesting and of value...
| So my ellipsis wasn't meant to imply quite the same completion as yours

Yet you and some others like to keep the argument
going. Over and over again. As though it's somehow
causing you to suffer.
It's a bit early for our once-a-month debate on
this, but if you insist.....

I find it hard to believe that I might be the only
one here who sees the alleged usenet rules as
outdated and problematic.

Look at it logically. Since the late 90s it's been
possible to view newsgroups in "thread view", which
display the order and relationship of posts. With
thread view it's very easy to see new posts and to
see the relationship between posts. People who
don't use thread view are ignoring the structure and
process of the discussion. They're treating each post
as a stand-alone event. Thus they need the foregoing
posts to know what a given post is talking about.

People doing that obstruct the discussion, often
repeating things that others have already posted,
while also reposting superfluous, commented text.
(Like you've just done yourself. I have to scroll down
to find your actual post at the end of the requoted
debris.)

A typical example of the problems resulting from
not using thread view just happened today in
the home repair group. Someone was not reading
some of the posts under his own question,
so he didn't know his question had been answered.
If he'd been using reasonably modern software and
reading the newsgroup in thread view then he would
have easily seen all new posts, and the order of
relationship between posts, and would have saved
several people the effort of continuing to try answering
his question. And when reading in thread view there's
no need for attribution, requoted text, or any of the
other junk people repost. The progression of the
conversation is obvious.

Huge was asking that I add attribution. (Note that
he actually had no other input to the discussion at all.)
Presumably he can't see who I'm responding to. If that's
the case then he's not using "thread view". If that's
the case then he actually can't see the progression
of threads and subthreads, depending instead on
repasted posts in order to figure out what the discussion
is about, as he wanders through a list of posts as though
each were a separate conversation. Capiche?

Usenet used to work that way many years ago
because software couldn't present thread view. But
thread view is the real representation of what usenet
is, and it's been available at least since Win98. Threads
and subthreads need to be seen in their order if one
is to properly take part in the discussion. There's no
excuse for avoiding seeing the structure of the thread
simply because that's how it worked in the 90s.

So there are these old timers who are so set on
sticking with their old ways that they'll actually
degrade the discussion in order to avoid change.
(Change some 20 years gone by, mind you.) Yet you
think I'm uncooperative because I try to format my
posts for clarity and don't indulge them in their
obsession with outdated rules from the early days
of the Internet? Have you ever actually stopped
to think about this before jumping in to play your
role of "hall monitor"?

Worse, you keep insisting on bringing it up
and talking about it. The only thing more ridiculous
than the obsession with outdated usenet rules is
the obsession with arguing about it, over and over
again.

What if I repeatedly asked you to please
clean the unnecessary requotes from your posts,
and maybe even threatened to "killfile" you because
I find your text debris stressful? After all, how
many times can a man be expected to scroll
unnecessarily before he just loses his marbles?!
If I said those things, don't you think you might
eventually try to hint that just maybe I need
to "get a life"?

Just so, I'd suggest that anyone
who's at the end of their rope about this issue might
do well to consider their blessings: health, food,
shelter, comfort and the luxury of being able to
bicker on usenet, for lack of anything better to do.
99% of the world doesn't have it this "good".


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.