This strikes me as a bit radical. I browse on a MacBook Air (11.6"), and this resulted in me having to scroll my window both vertically and horizontally to read through the page. I don't have to do this, normally. Maybe shoot for 960?
Really appreciate your careful observation.
I was aware of this, and it was a design tradeoff that I was willing to take (like this controversy "low-lighting" thing).
The big dilemma is always "how to pack a lot of information into a limited space without looking cluttered". I also tried 980px but that extra 100px does make a big difference (plus considering the "flow" of the text). Therefore I gave up the relatively smaller market of netbooks/11-inches MBAs and go with 1280px screens.
Thanks,
Ivan
$ trumps function trumps design in the real world.
Check out Apple (the company whose product you just ruled out) to see how it's done.
The correct way to deal with such issues is graceful degradation.
Cross-browser/cross-device compatibility is one of the most tedious things about web design, but if you're trying to drum up business, especially _for_ web design, you need to demonstrate your competence at it. Your portfolio is really the best place to do this. I'll be honest, if I was thinking of hiring a web developer, I'd be put off by your portfolio, because you're putting form before function.