About the width, though...the empty space on the sides bugged me, as did the really long area names that increased the heights of certain cells and various browsers' interpretations as to whether or not the text in the cells in the same rows should be by default centered (or not) along those taller cells. It seems to me that increasing the width solves all these problems, while making it a percentage makes it more adaptable for shorter and wider screens.
I never took widescreen displays into account, though. I'm betting those still aren't very common. A good point to bring up though, not sure if I would want to figure out how to do all the Javascript and etc. stuff involved (for the "if more than 1000 pixels wide then etc.)...I have enough trouble with plain old HTML as it is.
While we're on the subject, though, is a widescreen display worth it, Revned? I can understand how it might be cool for games that support it, and I'm guessing you can watch movies on your computer as widescreen as well, but those are the only two applications where I imagine that it would make a big difference.
As for the filesizes, I use the sizes as determined by Windows Explorer...though I have always noted with some dismay that for many files less than 100 kB that leaving my mouse pointer on the filename for a second will give me one or two decimal places (to make it three) and that files from 100 kB to a few hundred kB (the majority of them) show they're 1 kB less when the mouse pointer sits on it than when it's listed.
I try to be consistent and have always used the "mouse pointer idling" filesize, but it irks me that Windows itself isn't consistent.
No one's had a comment about the soon-to-be consistent, easier-to-manage, and likely more profitable ad header setup (either that or you've learned to tune out ads on web sites by now), so I will change the rest of them without a concern, it seems.
