So, dear sitebuilders, tell me, how many types of design do you know? And? So, I hear on the right yell hard... Right! What else? flexible... So! And which is better? Ouch! It is not necessary so to yell... Let us find out.
    Let us give definitions, to have  no disagreements.
Hard design- tabular design, in which the size of every cell either is set in pixels or by the picture or other element, placed in this cell.
Rubber design - tabular design, in which the width of one or a few cells is set in percents from the width of window.
    We, like educated people, understand at once  that hard design is much easier to develop. All the elements of the fixed width  are situated statically one from the other.  For those who wants to have more control at the markup of the page, it is better to develop pages with the fixed width which will remain constant for all the users regardless  size of monitor or changes of window extents. This approach is based on  the principles  of creation pages in printing, like keeping one net, relations of the elements situated on the page and convenient length of lines. Like in Magazine!  Here I offer you to stop and think for a while what it offers us.

Advantages:
·  A page will look identically regardless of permission of monitor. It gives enormous space for creation of difficult and stylish designs.
·  Pages and columns with the fixed width provide the best management for lengths of lines. Too long lines are uncomfortable for reading.

Disadvantages:

· Hard design has only one optimal resolution. If while developing the special stress was laid on compatibility (optimal size 640х480), already on 1024х768 fields occupy almost the half width of the page - and than farther, the worse.

· If while developing the special stress was laid on “middle” resolution (800х600),  the users of small monitors see the horizontal bar of scrolling appearing and they are not able to see a part of the content. Some developers  have  been orienting at  their own monitors  (1024х768), and even for 800х600 (almost 50% OF ALL THE USERS!) the page looks badly  - and for 640х480 it is usually unreadable
·  the desire to control fully  the reflection of the page  means a kind of deprecation of environment. Web – is not printed publishment, it does not have right standards and HTML is a universal language with logical  marking!
Yes, everywhere we find ourselves in a tight corner. Here a flexible design helps. Web-pages by default are flexible. Text and elements of  HTML file  get into the window of browser, filling all accessible space without depending on the sizes of monitor. If the window extent of browser changes, elements hatch repeatedly, to tune  to new sizes. Here Web essence shows up. Developers are firstly shocked by unforeseeable of place of appearance elements of page, but then they are usually taught to do without the complete management by a page.

So, what do we have?

Advantages:
·  pages WILL be represented on monitors with a different permission; a flexible page can be adjusted for output on any display.
·  All space of monitor is filled, undesirable available space is absent
·  A design is near to HTML by spirit.

Disadvantages:
·  on the big monitors the length of the line  can be excessive, which makes the conditions of reading worse.
·  The results of the flexible design can be often unforeseeable
·   it is very hard for  all browsers (especially Netscape4) to work with the cells of variable width. Everybody who have written compatible HTML are acquainted with cells which width is 100% and which occupy all  the free area. cells of the fixed width, which occupy more than, they are fixed; cells with the set identical width, but going out a different width and etc -  it would take to much time to count all tricks of browsers.  
· founding of  the “flexible” takes  twice – three times more time  than similar “hard”.
 As you see now, only you can answer the question  what kind of design is the best for you.  My first page was if the fixed sizes and there is nothing bad in it!
It was counted on permission 800Х600, and ottsentryrovana at the center of screen, so even on large monitors it will look rather well and there was not an effect of empty screen on the right.
 looked at oneself very decently, because there was no effect of empty screen on the right.(But take into consideration that using this method it is impossible exactly to dispose a table in relation to the background display pattern.)
the only lack ( very big) were fonts of fixed size. It was done because making the fonts bigger changes the page unexpectedly and of coarse it does not make the page better. Because of this the design of this site has fully a flexible structure. you must always remember that the choice of size of font is a user’s right! In fact you do a page for him? Then an user must choose how HE must comfortably look your page.
It is also possible to use a combined approach, when the page consists of the columns (frames) set by absolute and relative sizes. In this case after the change of the window size, one column remains former size, at the same time  the other change size and fill vacant place. In most cases it is better to use this method.  
At the end, I will say again that it is your choice. There are no strict rules and laws in web design.  But I still recommend  to use sectional and even better flexible design. Yes, it is longer and harder but it is very convenient for user and near on a spirit to the Web idea.