Cameron Moll contemplates, Is it time to move beyond 960?

So what’s the ideal width? I’m not sure yet. Let’s figure it out together. Here’s what I’ve got so far:
• 1020 is divisible by 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15 but not 8 and 16. It’s not much wider than 960.
• 1040 is divisible by 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 16 but not 3, 12, or 15. Yet it has a reasonable width that sits somewhere between the lower end of 960 and higher end of users browsing full screen (many don’t, of course).
• 1080, which is what I’m taking for a spin with a site right now, is divisible 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15 but not 16. It pushes the upper end of the width spectrum, and measure (line length) could become an issue if not dealt with appropriately.

I’ve actually used the 960 CSS framework he speaks of on my last two projects at Roundarch.
I remember the day my friend Jory IM’d me when Apple launched their new 984 pixel-wide website a few years ago. It was a sign, at least for us, that we could officially, safely, move beyond 800×600.
Laugh if you want, but 184 pixels is a big deal when your life revolves around those tiny, square sons-of-bitches.
Now CNN, NYTimes, BBC and Amazon all are optimized for at least 980 (Amazon is an elastic layout, but locks to around 980 on resize).