Widescreen or not?

[Xephian]

Def widescreen.

 

[CaiNaM]

In short lots of reasons to get the 4:3. In short it is bigger and better for just about everything except widescreen movies. And there it is nearly as good.

hardly. 4:3 cannot match either.

horizontal:

vertical:

and it takes about 1.5 seconds to change via a taskbar icon...

But hey get a Puny, skinny 16:10 20" if that is what you are into.

wow.. now you resort to rhetoric spoken in a true f@nboy fashion...



despite your one-man war waged against WS, it's here to stay, and reality is only a very few who own a WS would ever go back to 4:3... at least willingly

 

[Snowdog]

hardly. 4:3 cannot match either.
wow.. now you resort to rhetoric spoken in a true f@nboy fashion...

It was a bit tongue in cheek, but clearly aimed at silly statements proclaiming what other people would do. Speak just for yourself and I would probably leave out the hyperbole. Fine you like smaller wider. I like bigger/taller. No problem.

I think my scale picture paints the picture clearly why I would prefer 4:3. And if you read the thread from last week you will find many still do. It is a bigger monitor. Plain and simple.

You didn't offer a comparison. I did. In the comparison it is clear how much bigger a 4:3 monitor than the equivalent 16:10. If you had done a comparison, it would be obvious that in horizontal mode the 4:3 is nearly as wide with much more usable height. While in vertical mode it offers nears the same height with more usable width.

I have no problem with either ratio. But the 20" 16:10 is just too small in my opinion. It is essentailly after all, just a wider 17" as my image indicates. 20" 4:3 is quite nice. 23" 16:10 is even nicer. But I find 20"16:10, just like 17" LCDs, too small on the vertical.

For me it is simply a question of size. I like the bigger monitor better than the smaller one. Since when is it a bone of contention to like the bigger monitor.

30" 2560x1600 > 23" 1920x1200 > 20" 1600x1200> 20" 1680x1050 > 17" 1280x1024.

The last 4 were in the scale comparison I showed. What exactly is the problem. I like bigger monitors. Not an aspect zealot like some people.

EDIT to reiterate this is a size choice. Not a aspect choice. I noticed the first time 16:9 tubes came out. They were smaller than equivalent TV's but manufacturers charged more for them. Though at least this time 20"16:10 are cheaper than 20"16:12.

There is another side of not going back. I will never willingly give up screen real estate. I have had 1.92 Million pixels for over 5 years, so going back for less is not an option for me.

 

[CaiNaM]

It was a bit tongue in cheek, but clearly aimed at silly statements proclaiming what other people would do. Speak just for yourself and I would probably leave out the hyperbole. Fine you like smaller wider. I like bigger/taller. No problem.

I think my scale picture paints the picture clearly why many would prefer 4:3. And if you read the thread from last week you will find many still do. It is a much bigger monitor. Plain and simple.

You didn't offer a comparison. I did. In the comparison it is clear how much bigger a 4:3 monitor than the equivalent 16:10. If you had done a comparison, it would be obvious that in horizontal mode the 4:3 is nearly as wide with much more usable height. While in vertical mode it offers nears the same height with more usable width.

I have no problem with either ratio. But the 20" 16:10 is just too small in my opinion. It is essentailly after all, just a wider 17" as my image indicates. 20" 4:3 is quite nice. 23" 16:10 is even nicer. But I find 20"16:10, just like 17" LCDs, too small on the vertical.

ahh.. my sarcasm meter did not go off...

and my intention wasn't to declare one format over another, but rather an observation (and i've not seen anything to indicate it wasn't a correct observation) that most of the people posting negative comments about WS formats were people who didn't own one.

I certainly respect that you prefer a 4:3 format; it's your choice after all.. however from everything i've seen you are clearly in the minority. this isn't to say your choice is right or wrong; it's simply your choice and that's that. just seemed to me you were going to a lot of trouble to prove those choices different from yours were "wrong".

 

[Kryogen]

Well, a 20 inch WS has more vertical pixels than a 19 inch 4:3 (and way more horizontal), and it costs approx 100$ more.

A 20 inch 1600*1200 has a bit more, but it costs 130$ more than the 20 inch WS.

I guess it all comes down to the price you want to pay, but one way or the other, a 20 inch WS has more vertical pixels than a 4:3 19 inch.

 

[mr.dearthian]

I personally love my wide screen. I got a Gateway FPD2185W 21". I like the fact I can plug my Xbox 360 into it via componant input and go HD with proper aspect ratio in addition to using with my computer. Oblivion (360) in hi-def is gorgeous!! I saw it at a local Office Depot and fell in love instantly. It has a 8ms response.

Halflife 2, Lost Coast, and Episode 1 also look incredible in widescreen!!!

I went to it from a regular Samsung 19" LCD.

Mr.Dearthian

 

[Snowdog]

Kryogen, I agree. I would choose the 20" 16:10 over a 19" 5:4. BTW there are no 19" 4:3.

I only got involved in this thread when someone proclaimed he could see no reason why ANYONE would want a 4:3. Which is really nothing to do with the original topic.

The only people that I would recommend a 19" 5:4 to, are people who have trouble with small fonts on finer pitch panels.

Myself I can't stand the monster pixels on the 19". I even found the pixels on the 24" dell to be kind of big/coarse.

I still can't quite figure out panel pricing. It almost seems like it is priced more by pixel count than size. For instance there are now 20" 4:3 panels with 1400x1050 resolution and they are really cheap, much cheaper than the same size panel 1600x1200. Yet a big fixed cost is the glass sheet they make these from and you get the same number of panels no matter what the resolution, so same fixed cost.

20" 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 have essentially the same size pixels and height. So the only difference is the 20% greater width in both pixels count and actual area. So are they 20% more expensive? Try more than double. The bigger the monitor the bigger the profit margin.