Discussion in 'General Hardware' started by qubit, Dec 6, 2009.
Oohps. Yes I did mean 4:5. LOL. Sorry.
That same monitor can be had for $179 over at NEC right now. Granted it is a manufacturer refurb, but it still comes with a three year warranty.
Well, I understand. For things like spreadsheets (Excel), widescreen is sooo much nicer for me. No horizontal scrolling to bother with
yeah now with the windows 7 'snap' feature where you just press windows key and then left or right makes it a godsend to work with the accounting system and excel at the same time.
I used to also be part of the crowd that didn't like wide-screen at first.. but honestly, I think it was more resistance to change more than anything..
What converted me was movie viewing. Thats why I prefer 16:9.
the 'snap' thing as you call it is great - i find myself viewing two pics/two documents at once quite often.
and movies is what moved me to 16:9 - i had one screen of each aspect ratio, and kept going back to the 16:9
Super awesome! I'm putting 7 on all my rigs at work then. I just hope the machine with the single core Pentium and the 512mb of rambus can run it well. Rambus ram isn't cheap at all...
you can also just click and drag the windows
drag to the top, it maximises
drag to left/right and it takes up 50% of the screen, on those sizes - the keyboard shortcuts seem clumsier to me
So you wouldn't compare a 17 " to a 17" , 30 to 30?
If not then it's a completely pointless comparison because that's how monitors are measured.
Indeed, widescreen monitors can certainly be "better". It all depends on the application and your personal preference. But what I was explaining wasn't about that, simply about how aspect ratios work.
Well, guess wot? I'm wanna dem oddballs that still prefers 4:3 even after trying out widescreen for quite some time. lol
There's no right or wrong on this one.
that is all.
^no good for shopping lists and email inbox. You need to rotate that 90°. LOL
Huge screens of any ratio could be made : ]
That reminds me of an ultra wide I saw in a shop a while back. It looked similar to this one, but was flat and was designed to show 2.35:1 aspect ratio movies just as they would be shown in the cinema. It was something like 50" across.
It used LCD technology I think and I can't remember the brand.
No, I wouldn't, because going by diagonal measurement alone has always been a completely idiotic way to measure and judge monitors.
diagonal measurements just don't work when the aspect ratio changes.
plus can't we just rotate the screen?
widescreen monitors are great in portrait mode for viewing docs.
on a 30" 2560x1600 you can have 2 documents sided by side fully visible
not to mention the availability of a 30" 2048x1536 4:3 monitor
Yeah, could be.
Well, I would prefer a less wide one and have more height.
People would say nay to that screen all the time (they have to move their head to the left and to the right all the time). If it would have more height, we could at least see the face of the dead person in that screenshot .
Anyway I think it sucks there are still (three years later now) no 2048x1536 (4:3) or 2000x1600 (5:4) LCD's. (Well, I think there is a 2048x1536 retina iPad now?)
Simply because movies are recorded in 2.35:1 or at least closer than 16:9 than to 4:3, it's better to view movies on a wide-screen. But I think it would be better movies would be recorded on 4:3. And watching movies is only a small part of my computer time. BTW, talking about watching movies: most IMAX-screens are 1.375:1, and the largest projection screen (IMAX Sydney) has a 1.21:1 ratio; both closer to 4:3 than to 16:10.
Because the eyes are next to each other, its logical screens are a bit wider than they are high. But I think 4:3 would be best for that - or at least better than 16:10, 16:9 or even 2.35:1. It's not like the eyes are very far away from each other. If the eyes would above each other, a 3:4 monitor would be better than a 9:16 or 10:16.
Probably even still better (for the eyes) would be a ellipse shaped monitor (with 4:3 ratio if a rectangle was drawn around it) - but that's probably not that practical.
It's indeed (also) a matter of preference; people like newtekie1 like to have two portrait papers next to each other on the screen. Not me - I never do that.
"However, no one said we have to keep the diagonal measurement the same."
True or not (me indeed thinks the diagonal is not interesting): you compare a 4:3 19.2x14.4 to a 16:10 23.04x14.4, which is of course not really fair or at least not a good comparison.
Patherx12 compares a 4.3 19.2x14.4 with a 16.10 19.2x12.8, which is also not really fair or a good comparison.
To have a fair comparison, you'd want to compare two monitors with the same nr. of cm2 screen surface. Then, I prefer 4:3 or even 5:4 to 16:10/16:9 hands down.
Would we only have 1 eye, than indeed a square (of better: round) monitor would be best. But because we have 2 eyes next to each other, 4:3 is better.
I hear people say it all the time: 'wider is better'. Which, in itself, is totally nonsense. Than a 100.000x100 (or even 1.000.000x10) would be better than a 3651x2738 monitor (both approx. 10 million pixels).
A spherical monitor would be nice too:
Superb gaming, for some games. Like RISK and Civilization, and maybe a type of Settlers (maybe in combo with a normal monitor).
Love my 16:10 monitor, expensive compared to 1080, but extra real estate is worth it. I came from 19" at 1600x1200, and didn't see the point in going lower to 1080. Just wish I could afford a 2nd one.....
Separate names with a comma.