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

Madison James wrote on 1/23/2015 5:49 PM:
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 ?

There is a current discussion on the Mozilla news server about a related
Firefox topic: FF is reporting screen rather than window size if I
understood what I read. The reason the discussion thread was started had
to do with fingerprinting. It's the mozilla.support.firefox newsgroup
under the news.mozilla..org server.
--
Jeff Barnett

drek wrote:

Madison James wrote:

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

One source lists 1366x768 as tops by a large margin.

Yep, used by loads of el-cheapo wide screen laptops.

On 2015-01-25, Huge wrote:
On 2015-01-24, Mayayana wrote:
| 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.

No attribution. ******. Killfiled.


Used the word ******.
Killfiled,
Not really, I'm not 13.

--
_____ _______ ____ __ __ _____ _
/ ____|__ __/ __ \| \/ | __ \ | |
| (___ | | | | | | \ / | |__) | | |
\___ \ | | | | | | |\/| | ___/ | |
____) | | | | |__| | | | | | |_|
|_____/ |_| \____/|_| |_|_| (_)

In article ,
"Don Phillipson" wrote:

"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.

What's more "identifying" is the list of fonts they can retrieve from
your system.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

In article ,
Huge wrote:

On 2015-01-24, Mayayana wrote:
| 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.

No attribution. ******. Killfiled.

Must be hurtful.
--
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing room scene.
-- notes for Blade Runner

Warren Oates wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 09:17:42 -0500:

What's more "identifying" is the list of fonts they can retrieve from
your system.

What surprises me is that fonts aren't "more" standard than they are.

For one, I could probably do with perhaps a dozen or so true-type fonts,
for the most part (e.g., arial, symbol, helvetica, timesnewroman,
couriernew, etc.).

For another, why aren't the fonts more standardized across platforms
(e.g., why would windows need different fonts than linux?).

Is there a way to "reduce" the fonts to a standard package?

Jeff Barnett wrote, on Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:29:48 -0700:

FF is reporting screen rather than window size if I understood what I
read.

Firefox reports screen size.
Tor Browser Bundle reports canvas size.

It's better to report canvas size than screen size for this purpose.

In article , Sage wrote:

What's more "identifying" is the list of fonts they can retrieve from
your system.

What surprises me is that fonts aren't "more" standard than they are.

they cant be.

For one, I could probably do with perhaps a dozen or so true-type fonts,
for the most part (e.g., arial, symbol, helvetica, timesnewroman,
couriernew, etc.).

you might, but the rest of the world certainly would not be able to do
that.

what a boring world it would be if everyone used the same font.

For another, why aren't the fonts more standardized across platforms
(e.g., why would windows need different fonts than linux?).

because linux users won't pay for the original fonts so they end up
with knockoffs that are never exactly correct or as good.

Is there a way to "reduce" the fonts to a standard package?

only if you want to have everything look wrong.

nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:25:54 -0500:

what a boring world it would be if everyone used the same font.

I didn't say the "same font". I said the "same fonts".

How many fonts does the average person need?
We're not talking specialists.

We're talking mom and pop, who basically surf the web and read
their email?

How many fonts does the average person (explicitly) use anyway?

I use a monospaced font and a kerning font,and that's about it.
So, two Truetype fonts would do me just fine.

I guess my question would be how "I" could make "my" fonts more
"standard" so that they don't give me away.

nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:25:54 -0500:

because linux users won't pay for the original fonts so they end up
with knockoffs that are never exactly correct or as good.

What does that mean?
I'm not sure what an "original" font is, but, to me, a font is pretty
darn simple.

I could live with two (one monospaced and one not mono spaced), both
truetype, and that would cover almost everything I do, which is read
the web and type email and Usenet posts.

For example, I have absolutely no idea (nor do I care) what font I'm
currently typing in, so, why would I want an "original" (whatever that
is) or any other font.

I'd just want, for privacy reasons, the "same" font that everyone else
was using.

How would I do that?

nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:25:54 -0500:

Is there a way to "reduce" the fonts to a standard package?

only if you want to have everything look wrong.

When I type email, in Google Mail, I don't care *what* font is
used. Same with typing this message to you in Usenet.

a. I don't even *know* what font is being used, and,
b. I wouldn't care if some other (reasonable) font was used.

It looks fine to me in whatever font I'm using.
How does this message (the font) look to you?

What font am I using anyway?
And why would I care to change it?

On Sunday 25 January 2015 17:54, Huge conveyed the following to
alt.os.linux...

On 2015-01-25, Sage wrote:
nospam wrote, on Sun, 25 Jan 2015 11:25:54 -0500:

because linux users won't pay for the original fonts so they end up
with knockoffs that are never exactly correct or as good.

What does that mean?

It means "nospam" is a tedious ****.

Not to mention a bigoted troll.

--
= Aragorn =

http://www.linuxcounter.net - registrant #223157

Mayayana wrote:

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.

However, it is possible with threaded views to view only unread
messages, and I for one prefer that combination, especially in groups
where threads are long-running and someone may reply into a backwater of
thread.

| How many fonts does the average person need?
| We're not talking specialists.
|

I use quite a few for graphics. Anything that looks
good I'll install, in order to have options. Most people
don't work with graphics, but they often get new fonts
from software, scanners, printers, etc.

I wouldn't be surprised if, for instance, an installed
version of MS Office could be identified. I know that
some of the Wingdings fonts only came with MS Office.
OS version should also be identifiable. So if you were
on Linux and wanted to hide that you might want to install
the set of fonts that comes with Windows 7.

| I guess my question would be how "I" could make "my" fonts more
| "standard" so that they don't give me away.
|

This listing might give you some ideas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._Windows_fonts

In article , Sage wrote:

because linux users won't pay for the original fonts so they end up
with knockoffs that are never exactly correct or as good.

What does that mean?

it means that font designers create fonts to be sold (no surprise
there, as it's a lot of work to create) and linux users won't pay for
much of anything, so linux users end up with knockoff fonts that may
not have the same metrics and might not look correct when substituted
for the real thing.

I'm not sure what an "original" font is, but, to me, a font is pretty
darn simple.

fonts are *very* complex, and basically works of art.

the museum of modern art in new york even has a collection:
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_o...-fonts-23-new-
faces-in-moma-s-collection

I could live with two (one monospaced and one not mono spaced), both
truetype, and that would cover almost everything I do, which is read
the web and type email and Usenet posts.

as i said, that might work for you but it sure won't work for others.

adobe's font folio includes more than 2400 fonts, and that's just *one*
collection from one company:
http://www.adobe.com/products/fontfolio.html