It is not a question of your own preference, it's the opinion of all the visitors that counts. And that's in a nutshell the reason why fluid layouts are better: they adapt to the users' screens regardless the resolution. So going with fixed layouts is basically saying "you aren't welcome here" to all handheld and large desktop users. A website as a tiny stripe at the middle of the screen will piss users off as much as having to scroll from the left to the right all the time.
My vote goes for fixed layouts Fixed-width layouts are much easier to use and easier to customize in terms of design. Widths are the same for every browser, so there is less hassle with images, forms, video and other content that are fixed-width. There is no need for min-width or max-width, which isn’t supported by every browser anyway. Even if a website is designed to be compatible with the smallest screen resolution, 800×600, the content will still be wide enough at a larger resolution to be easily legible.
Responsive design all the way. You can;t just abandon mobile and tablet users - they are half your market. If you use a responsive grid, it is really easy to put together adaptive layouts.
I would say it's closer to 80% of the market nowadays, sure you still have a lot of people who do their main web browsing on a big screen. However, I would imagine most of them throughout the day use their smart phone or tablet to browse the internet. If you forgot about them then the first impression they have on your website will not be very favorable and repeat visitors will be very low. Though if your content is garbage to start with then having or not having a responsive web design will not do any good.
I prefer fixed layout. fluid layouts is more hard to design. As a surfer, I don't like fluid layouts site as well. It is too wide on my 24' LCD. It's hard to read stuff on a fluid layout.
Basically, your argument is a sign of ineptitude and flawed methodologies. If you had established your semantic markup first, and then enhanced it progressively with some css, you would realize that fluid layouts come out pretty naturally. This is precisely why we usually apply max width to the main container, but in EM. I usually put max-width:76em, but 72,80 and even 100+ can be used.
There are only three types of people who advocate the use of fixed width layouts -- the ignorant, the inept, and the sleazy. They are the antithesis of accessible design, which is why I consider them to be part of the trifecta of /FAIL/ at web design... The other two of course being fixed metric (px) fonts and illegible color contrasts. The very notion of a fixed width layout ignores the reason TBL created HTML, the entire purpose of CSS and the very nature of what the Internet is. The ONLY reason it has become SOP (standard operating procedure) for so many in the business is the artsy fartsy PSD jockeys who don't know enough about HTML, CSS or accessibility to be designing a blasted thing so far as the Internet is concerned. ANYONE telling you otherwise is either not qualified to even open their blasted yap on the subject, or is some sleazeball scam artist trying to prey on the ignorance of others. Any MODERN layout should have three things in regards to it's width: 1) Elastic -- which is to say declare everything in EM's so any values you declare will automatically enlarge or shrink based on the default font-size, because *NEWS FLASH* not all users start out at the same default size. Large font/120dpi users like myself for example start out at 20px, 'modern large' / 144dpi start at 24px, 10 foot systems start out at 32px, and some handheld devices start out at 12px or less. Your design should be able to adjust to that. (this is also why declaring px fonts is inaccessible rubbish and should be used with an eyedropper on site designs -- the only place it's usually justified is under a image-replacement like gilder-levin.) 2) Semi-fluid -- declaring a maximum width so that lines of text do not get so long you can't read them, and declaring a minimum width so that the layout doesn't break or become hard to use. 3) Responsive -- changing the layout to fit narrower displays... or to better fill wider displays. You can strip off columns as you run out of space, or split the content into more columns if you have more space. IF you've been practicing accessible design and bothering to pay attention to what we've been told the past FIFTEEN YEARS responsive layout is just the next logical step (particularly if you were designing mcSwitchy in-between). Converting a properly written well thought out accessible fluid or semi-fluid layout to responsive in most cases shouldn't take more than ten to twenty lines of code... But of course, if everything I just said is gibberish to you and you're still sleazing out HTML 3.2 and either slapping 4 tranny or 5 lip-service on it, scoff at concepts like separation of presentation from content, crapping together off the shelf "frameworks" any old way, and wouldn't know semantic markup from the hole in an Adobe DVD, you'll be just as lost on responsive layout and accessible design as you would be at finding your own backside. Bottom line, there's a reason 99% of my designs now start with: body { font:normal 85%/150% arial,helvetica,sans-serif; } #pageWrapper { min-width:40em; max-width:68em; width:95%; margin:0 auto; } Code (markup): Giving me a nice solid baseline for pre-media query browsers, I can then adjust the min and max-width as appropriate for the media queries -- stripping off the min-width for small screens and expanding the max-width for larger displays if I have three or four columns worth of stuff I can re-arrange. ANYONE telling you different needs to shut their ignorant halfwit yap, stop packing you so full of sand you could change your name to Sahara, and take a nice big double barreled helping of shut the .....
I like just about anything that looks good. if its a fixed layout I will use it. Even tho I design my own forum themes. I prefer a fluid layout