Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I don't remember the exact dimensions right now, but isn't it more like 20" widescreens have similar heights of 17" monitors, not 19"?UnknownSouljer said:I think the only pro of 4:3 ratio monitors is probably vertical space. 20" widescreens have similar heights of 19" monitors (but obviously are significantly wider).
IceWind said:I have a 2405FPW on the way, I have a feeling i'll never wanna go back to the "square" world of LCD"s again.
Elderblaze said:20 inch widescreen = Height of 19 Inch CRT, 17 Inch LCD.
Cmon people it aint that difficult.IceWind said:This is a good comparison
[IG]http://img123.imageshack.us/img123/5302/img03964bx.jpg[/IMG]
GLSauron said:Cmon people it aint that difficult.
20.0" Widescreen (16:10 Comp) = 17"x10.6"
17.6" Fullscreen (4:3) = 14.1"x10.6"
21.6" Widescreen (16:9 TV) = 18.8"x10.6"
That is very, very interesting! And I agree with the Romans.peacetilence said:Yeah, I don't think theres really anything that isn't better on a widescreen monitor. Someone mentioned on these forums (I believe) that the ancient romans created a "golden ratio" in which they would design landscapes and structures (in this golden ratio) because it was most pleasing to the human eye. The golden ratio was 1.6. So 16:10 16/10=1.6 The ancient romans would prefer widescreen!
Everfalling said:someone told me that games dont fit widescreen formats... any truth to this?
which would be why the height I used came from a 2005FPW, not a 2405...IceWind said:Actually, its more like this for the 2405
GLSauron said:which would be why the height I used came from a 2005FPW, not a 2405...
A 2405 is my screen + a couple inches wide.
peacetilence said:that was the picture that convinced me to shell out the cash for a 2405 instead of a 2005. It's 40% bigger.
Everfalling said:someone told me that games dont fit widescreen formats... any truth to this?
peacetilence said:that was the picture that convinced me to shell out the cash for a 2405 instead of a 2005. It's 40% bigger.
IceWind said:To be precise, more like this
]http://img111.exs.cx/img111/7139/2005vs24055yk.jpg]
30% by pixels (1920x1200)/(1680x1050)vat said:I haven't done the calculation but are you sure the Dell 2405FPW is 40% bigger than the Dell 2005FPW?
Its 20% more pixels. So get a GTX instead of a GT and forget it. If you are buying a $900 monitor, you should be able to scrape an extra $50-100 for the card.linjy2 said:man i would get a 2405, but then i need a better card to run it, since native is higher. do you people with 2405 not play games or just have expensive graphic cards.
GLSauron said:Its 20% more pixels. So get a GTX instead of a GT and forget it. If you are buying a $900 monitor, you should be able to scrape an extra $50-100 for the card.
edit: 20% more compared to 1600x1200.
yea, $900 monitor, plus another $300-500, aint exactly cheap. i paid $900 for my 19inch planar lcd 4 yrs ago.Pinipig523 said:Dont know about "should".... some of us who buy a $900 monitor have to shave off $50 to 100 off the card.
LOL...
AFAIK, yeah... that's too bad because I can tell a lot of people would like a 15"-17" 1280x800 widescreen LCD, which would bring widescreen monitors down to reasonable prices. Oh well, there's always next year...Tiny said:So are there only 2 or 3 widescreen monitors out there? Under the massive Dell 24"?