Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
wow, please stop wowing me with all that fancy multiplication. did i ever say the actual screen size was bigger? no, i didnt. you made up a reason to attack me...nice.
I am responding in kind to your roll eyes contempt at the previous poster when you claimed you could go on and on about how much more productive widescreen is with a mere 80 additionaly pixels in width. This is nonsense.
If you are putting up two side by side documents they each get 840pixels in Widescreen, 800pixels in 4:3. A mere 40 pixel advantage makes ZERO effect on productivity. But the 4:3 will give each document and additional 150 pixels in height which is a much larger effect on productivity.
Originally posted by: sindows
What I'm saying is that I don't get why 20" widescreens are so popular when they offer very little extra advatange in terms of having extra horizontal screen space.
1: The real number 1 reason is rationalizing. Some people will defend what they bought by parroting things without any thought. You see it in this thread where people are aping the "widescreen is better for two documents side by side" without actually thinking about the fact that the 4:3 20" is just as wide. Any claims on productivity being better on widescreen are just absurd rationalizations.
Some bought widescreens because that is what is popular with manufacturers, so now they defend their purchase. Why do manufacturers like them? Simple: smaller screens are cheaper to build.
2: Preference for aspect ratio. This is real legitimate reason. Some just like the look of the wider screen. This is a real legitimate preference. I too prefer the look of wider aspect. But not at the expense of less pixels.
I program for a living and have been using 1600x1200 on CRT, for 10 years on the job and at home. I had no interest in trying LCD until I could at least match this. My first LCD was the Dell 2405 at 1920 x 1200. But it turns out I couldn't stand the color shifts of a PVA screen(among other things), so I sold it.
So what next. Both the 2007wfp and 2007fp had S-IPS screen so I decided on the FP in seconds. The wide aspect is more asthetically pleasing, but I would never trade screen pixels away to simply get a more pleasing aspect. Something I notice primarily when the monitor is off. Especially when going to manufacturers used it as a way to sell me less screen at the same price. The 2007wfp is actually more expensive than the 2007fp in Canada!
Widescreen is nice, but only at a minimum 1920x1200 entry point for me.