![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Best 19" tft 4:3
- Thread starter BREBO
- Start date
*shrug* I suppose, though I never thought I'd see someone who prefers 4:3 to WS.
As far as a suggestion, all of the 4:3 monitors on Newegg have a response time of 5ms+. I've only ever used 2ms, so I personally don't know if 5ms would cut it or not in games. I've only heard that 5ms is sufficient.
As far as a suggestion, all of the 4:3 monitors on Newegg have a response time of 5ms+. I've only ever used 2ms, so I personally don't know if 5ms would cut it or not in games. I've only heard that 5ms is sufficient.
That would be a 19 or 21" CRT. But if you want a TFT and are willing to go used, check out this page.
Eh... I do. With 16:10 a distant second and 16:9 not even a consideration.
I don't watch movies or play games though. I get real work done.
I don't watch movies or play games though. I get real work done.
I get real work done too on my 16:10
I am curious though, why do you prefer 4:3? I'm not knockin' on your choice, I'd just like to know your reasons.
Sure, no problem. Seriously off-topic, but here goes.....I get real work done too on my 16:10
I am curious though, why do you prefer 4:3? I'm not knockin' on your choice, I'd just like to know your reasons.
* I don't usually read or write in landscape mode
* I get more vertical real estate space which is important since toolbars, start menus, taskbars and status bars take up some of that space. I have nothing that needs the L&R space except desktop icons.
* Web pages and documents are made for portrait mode, since that is better for human vision. Less scrolling is good.
* Terminal programs, Unix CLI and command prompts don't benefit from WS, but do from more vertical space.
* The 'advantage' of reading two pages side by side is a bad argument IMO. Nobody I know does that unless they have a very big monitor, and rarely if they do at all. At < 22", you'd get two hard-to-read pages instead of one good one. I'd rather scroll or alt-tab between two documents.
* There is no ergonomic study that suggests widescreens are better for nearfield vision. Widescreen field-of-vision only true for further away, like TV/movies and only if you include peripheral vision in the equation.
* My speakers are too far apart now and barely fit on my desk.
* I truly believe that some people (not all mind you...) are accepting a larger 16:9 WS monitor not because they really want it, but because they need to make up for the vertical space lost from the 4:3 or even 16:10 days. I have no evidence to back this up though, but it was true for a few people I know.
These are off the top of my head. And no, I didn't pilfer Wikipedia or any other source.
For games and watching movies, I can understand why some people might like widescreens. But that constitutes less than 10% of my computer use for me, and I can watch a widescreen movie within a window perfectly fine without losing all my desktop space.
The better question is, at what point would widescreen be too widescreen for you (or anyone reading this)? 16:8? 16:6? 16:1? A ticker tape?
For me, 16:10 is almost too much. If it weren't for HDTV, I don't know how anyone can say that 16:9 is good for desktop use. For instance, in what way for desktop use is 16:9 better than 16:10?
lawless2142
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2008
- Messages
- 253
Most non-wide 19" LCD's have always been 1280x1024 (5:4 aspect). For a 4:3 you'd have to jump down to 1024x768, and I've only ever seen those in 15" and 17" versions. I can't say I've seen any 4:3 aspect panels made in the past 2-3 years.
If you're looking for a used one, a Viewsonic VX922 was a great panel for both response time and easily adjusted to achieve pretty accurate color.
If you're looking for a used one, a Viewsonic VX922 was a great panel for both response time and easily adjusted to achieve pretty accurate color.
I don't like 16:9. I agree that 16:10 is definitely the better choice between the two.
This I can see. I work a lot at a command line, and I can see how that would be a big benefit.
This I can see. I work a lot at a command line, and I can see how that would be a big benefit.
My favorite 4:3 LCD was the Samsung 203B. It was good, but not stellar at any one particular thing. I loved the resolution (1400x1050), aspect ratio and general DPI for most things. Fonts were not tiny, but it still gave decent desktop space. I still have one at home.
Unless the monitor is 17", I wouldn't want 1280x1024. Going up to a 1600x1200 is good for a 20"+ model.
Unless the monitor is 17", I wouldn't want 1280x1024. Going up to a 1600x1200 is good for a 20"+ model.
Probably a good choice for gaming with its 2ms response time, but it's a 1280x1024 monitor if that's okay with the OP.
Sure, no problem. Seriously off-topic, but here goes.....
* I don't usually read or write in landscape mode
* I get more vertical real estate space which is important since toolbars, start menus, taskbars and status bars take up some of that space. I have nothing that needs the L&R space except desktop icons.
* Web pages and documents are made for portrait mode, since that is better for human vision. Less scrolling is good.
* Terminal programs, Unix CLI and command prompts don't benefit from WS, but do from more vertical space.
* The 'advantage' of reading two pages side by side is a bad argument IMO. Nobody I know does that unless they have a very big monitor, and rarely if they do at all. At < 22", you'd get two hard-to-read pages instead of one good one. I'd rather scroll or alt-tab between two documents.
* There is no ergonomic study that suggests widescreens are better for nearfield vision. Widescreen field-of-vision only true for further away, like TV/movies and only if you include peripheral vision in the equation.
* My speakers are too far apart now and barely fit on my desk.
* I truly believe that some people (not all mind you...) are accepting a larger 16:9 WS monitor not because they really want it, but because they need to make up for the vertical space lost from the 4:3 or even 16:10 days. I have no evidence to back this up though, but it was true for a few people I know.
These are off the top of my head. And no, I didn't pilfer Wikipedia or any other source.
For games and watching movies, I can understand why some people might like widescreens. But that constitutes less than 10% of my computer use for me, and I can watch a widescreen movie within a window perfectly fine without losing all my desktop space.
The better question is, at what point would widescreen be too widescreen for you (or anyone reading this)? 16:8? 16:6? 16:1? A ticker tape?
For me, 16:10 is almost too much. If it weren't for HDTV, I don't know how anyone can say that 16:9 is good for desktop use. For instance, in what way for desktop use is 16:9 better than 16:10?
I agree with this 100% man!!! I hate widescreen monitors. They are not efficient for computer use. You lose too much vertical space that is needed for productivity software use and gain useless horizontal space. I use my computer for school work (computer science major so I use many different programs for classes) and lots of web surfing. I used to game a lot (COD 4, 5, BF2, 2142 and other fps) but I stopped playing a year ago. When it was time to upgrade my 19" 4:3 hyundai lcd monitor I had a hard time finding one that was right for me. Everything above 20" was widescreen and I couldn't stand it. I had to buy a hanns-g 27.5" monitor just to get something with good vertical height and that didn't have an insanely high resolution. I hate the fact that lcd manufacturers are catering to movie watchers instead of people who use their computers to do computer related stuff. I mean if you want to watch movies buy a damn tv. What's worse is that the same trend is taking place with laptops.
I remember when I wanted to upgrade my wife's 17" lcd monitor, I went out and bought her a 19" ws. I was so dissapointed when I got it home, it was actually smaller vertically than the 17" one. It felt like a downgrade. I wound up returning it and buying her a 19" 4:3 one.
Dell Small Business sells two 19" 4:3 monitors and a 20" 4:3 one also.