Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I know it seems like the "in" or "popular" thing these days to bash 20" widescreen LCD's as being too small, but honestly, a lot of people have them and really like them - and what's wrong with that? I've used both a 2001FP and my current 2005FPW, and I'm really glad I decided to stick with the latter. The 16:10 aspect ratio just works a lot better for me - I love playing games in widescreen, plus I do a LOT of HDTV watching on my monitor....and guess what, that's all 16:9. Of course, DVD's are nice too.
I also don't know why people get off on saying that WS screens prey on people who are bad at math :roll:...I don't think anyone who has one of these screens is unaware of what its resolution is and that it has 150 less vertical pixels than 4:3 20" LCD monitors. But I've never found myself wishing I had more vertical pixels on this 2005FPW (and remember, I've actually used a 2001FP), while gaming/HDTV always makes me glad I have a widescreen. I've never had any problems with fitting multiple windows on the screen either (for text applications). Plus, as was mentioned above, rotating the screen 90° gives you a really nice tall screen for reading long text documents.
I don't think anyone's denying that a 24" WS LCD would be better (mainly for having all the pixels for 1080p), but not everyone can afford to spend $800 on a monitor...I (along with many others) am quite happy with the monitor I bought. And it's not because we're "stupid", it's because it offers many real advantages to us over other choices around the same price point.
Originally posted by: SynthDude2001
I know it seems like the "in" or "popular" thing these days to bash 20" widescreen LCD's as being too small, but honestly, a lot of people have them and really like them - and what's
Originally posted by: akugami
40 pixels, 150 pixels. Who cares. Windows in a GUI and documents in modern programs are not opened and set by how many pixels are in your screen.Pixels matter zero in this case and
Originally posted by: akugami
Let's put two excel spreadsheets side by side. Opened and filling as much as possible of the screen space. In a 4:3 monitor, each excel spreadsheet would be 2:3 in aspect. In most spreadsheets this cuts off about 1/4 of my work space on the right side. And if my workspace is in landscape and not portrait, it cuts off about 1/2 of my work space. In a 16:10 widescreen LCD, each spreadsheet is 8:10 in aspect. This is about perfect for spreadsheets in portrait mode and still much better due to more width in landscape.
Originally posted by: guidryp
Originally posted by: akugami
Let's put two excel spreadsheets side by side. Opened and filling as much as possible of the screen space. In a 4:3 monitor, each excel spreadsheet would be 2:3 in aspect. In most spreadsheets this cuts off about 1/4 of my work space on the right side. And if my workspace is in landscape and not portrait, it cuts off about 1/2 of my work space. In a 16:10 widescreen LCD, each spreadsheet is 8:10 in aspect. This is about perfect for spreadsheets in portrait mode and still much better due to more width in landscape.
Everything works on pixels in windows. Not just the menu bars. Each cell in spreadsheet will take up the same amount of pixels whether it is displayed on a widescreen or whether it is displayed on a 4:3, to think they will take up different pixel count/cell because one is widescreen is beyond moronic.
Since these monitors are essentially the same pixel width. And if you put two spreadsheet or whatever type of document side-by-side you will see just as much on 4:3. The only real difference is you will see many more rows on the 4:3.
Again I have no problem if someone just likes the look of widescreen. But if you continue to spout off nonsense when you don't have a clue what you are talking about, I will continue you to point that out.
There is no difference in the way information is mapped on a widescreen or 4:3 monitor, If a spreadsheet cell is 20 pixels wide on one, it will be 20 pixels wide on the other. And if the spreadsheet is 800 pixels wide in total, two of them will fit side by side on either monitor.
Originally posted by: MrDudeMan
good point! windows and none of the software that runs on it include the ability to scale font sizes and cell sizes! you should sell your idea.
Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo
Widescreen is best for gaming, and less good for everything else.
I wish there were some really good 1600x1200 LCDs out there, but they don't exist.
Originally posted by: Crescent13
I love my NEC 20WMGX2!
Are you being dense on purpose? Real physical space as measured in inches not in pixels is the same is what I'm stating and what others have said. When measured not according to pixels, the physical space you are viewing is exactly the same. It doesn't matter that the pixels are packed more closely together for things like data entry and programming. The difference between the 4:3 monitor and the 16:10 widescreen is where your viewable screen real estate is spread towards.
Originally posted by: straightalker
Are you being dense on purpose? Real physical space as measured in inches not in pixels is the same is what I'm stating and what others have said. When measured not according to pixels, the physical space you are viewing is exactly the same. It doesn't matter that the pixels are packed more closely together for things like data entry and programming. The difference between the 4:3 monitor and the 16:10 widescreen is where your viewable screen real estate is spread towards.
Not so. The one geometric constant in this equation is the 20.1" diagonal screen measurement.
Let's start with the standard 1600x1200 4:3 viewing ratio 20.1" monitor. Now imagine it as a flexible box diagram. A "wide screen" 20.1" inch monitor is achieved by pushing the box diagram down. What is gained is +80 extra pixels width and -150 pixels hieght. A net loss of actual viewing real estate.
Widescreens are cheaper for two reasons. Apparently they are more popular, so more units are made which drives per unit costs down. Basic Economics 101.
The less real estate factor is the second cost factor.
Me? I'd far prefer the 4:3 ratio LCD Monitor and the extra real estate. Which judging from the prices lately and the rebates, makes widescreen deals average around 350$ and 4:3 screens average 450$. Though i do see this 4:3 LCD monitor priced now at 399$.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001226