Widescreen vs Regular screen

[eroman]

It has been discussed already, here is a poll if you feel like voting.

Anyway, widescreen has obviuos advantages. I just wonder if it is compatible with non-widescreen applications such as old 4:3 fullscreen games. Do most widescreens support resizing to 4:3 when needed or you just have to bare with the stretched images?

 

[DaFox]

Widescreens are regular screens.

 

[Ornery]

It's like voting for 8 1/2" x 11" paper VS 8 1/2" x 14". Which would you rather use? For me, nine times out of ten, I have no use for the extra odd inches. Usually appears as black bars or wasted web site space on the sides of the widescreen display. For watching movies? That's what my home theater is for. When my 19" 4:3 flat aperture grill pukes (may be soon), it will probably be a 4:3 that replaces it.

 

[~th@fonz~]

 

[Sinister Crayon]

Widescreen gives a wider a FOV, but less vertical area. The closer the resolution ratio is to 1:1, the more area you will actually have if the monitors were to have the same diagonal. It's all really relative though and comes down to personal preference.

 

[Android1]

4:3 gets my vote.

 

[Mohonri]

I prefer multiple 4:3 screens to a widescreen. Maybe it's just easier to segregate browser/API/IDE windows that way, but for me 4:3 is best for development work. It's also better for older games, since my computer isn't exactly up to the standards of modern games.

That being said, I'm currently running a widescreen, because my old monitor bit the dust and there happened to be a great deal on one at the same time. I want to add a pair of 20" 4:3 displays to it, though. I've always wanted a multiple-monitor setup. Maybe I've watched too many movies where someone has a sexy multi-monitor setup, like Serenity, or The Matrix, or Muzzy, or Mission Impossible, or any of a number of 007 movies, or...the list goes on.

For movies, though, absolutely widescreen is better. Which makes me wonder why I have a 4:3 TV but a widescreen computer monitor.....something's wrong with me, I think....

 

[eroman]

Widescreens are regular screens.

Not yet I think. Clearly, widescreen is the future, but I wonder if the present is still 4:3?
I use a widey TV for home cinema, but I like my monitor more squareish. I watch lots of 4:3 shows, not all media is 16:9. And I'm not much of a gamer to care about FPS larger viewing area.

Can anyone share his experience with wideys, especially how well can they handle a "manual" 4:3 setting when the users wants one? I wonder if I would get a wide 20' and use it as a 4:3 19' display (approx. screen size), just for the extra options of a widescreen if I ever need it, though I don't think it's recommendable with all the issues TFTs have (e.g native resolution, interpolation, etc.).

 

[Volucris]

16:10 is awesome. I don't like my 5:4 monitor anymore.

 

[Mohonri]

Can anyone share his experience with wideys, especially how well can they handle a "manual" 4:3 setting when the users wants one? I wonder if I would get a wide 20' and use it as a 4:3 19' display (approx. screen size), just for the extra options of a widescreen if I ever need it, though I don't think it's recommendable with all the issues TFTs have (e.g native resolution, interpolation, etc.).

It depends on what widescreen LCD you get. Mine, for example, stretches a smaller resolution to the full screen size (I wish I had known that before buying). Others will allow you to do something similar to letterboxing--keeping the resolution at 1:1 pixel and leaving black areas on the extra. So do your research. Mine isn't bad, but you lose the crispness that is a selling point for LCDs when you use a non-native resolution. Personally, I find that a 20" widescreen isn't wide enough to comfortably fit two windows side-by-side.