20" Widescreen LCDs-am I the only one who doesn't understand the point of them?

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: forbin
the argument of 20.1 WS vs 20" 4:3 is a retarded one due solely to the fact that there is a 200$ price difference between them.

20.1" WS should be compared to 12x10 lcds, and in this case i greatly prefer WS.

I agree that this should be the argument. A $500 screen had better have more pixels that a $300 screen, but the price has to be taken into account. Where I work, all of our documents are scanned into a document-management system. People are constantly having to look at both the scanned images and other programs at the same time. We purchased a few 19" LCDs but found that they did not have enough horizontal space for two side-by-side programs to be very legible. I'm sure that a 20" 4:3 screen would be large enough to do this, but if we don't need the extra vertical pixels, then the extra premium over a 20" WS is a waste. It's a small company with only 25 employees. But 25 x $500 ($12,500) is a WHOLE lot more than 25 x $300 ($7,500).

 

[Heartbreaker]

Check newegg and see what the prices are really like rather than exaggerating to make your case. Here are some points in the 20.1" category:

Two cheapest 1680x1050: $299 (after mail in rebate), $316( refurb)
Two cheapest 1600x1200: $352 (refurb), $399 regular price.

The most expensive 20.1" is the new 1680x1050 NEC.

Much closer to a maximum $100 dollar difference. And if you are a dell shopper it is about a $50 dollar difference. Actually In Canada the wfp is more expensive.

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: moonboy403

lol...it's true that widescreen loses pixel counts, but you're still viewing 20.1 inch worth of stuff

and no one would notice losing a few pixels :roll:

Except that a 16:10 20.1 is physically smaller than a 4:3 20". In fact, it's only ever so slightly larger than a 5:4 19" (181.48 in² vs 176.15 in²)

Go look for yourself

20" 4:3 is where it's at unless you can afford to get a large widescreen (in sizes where 4:3's don't exist). A 23/24" 1920x1200 is the smallest 16:10 I would ever consider, I refuse to purchase anything with <1200 vertical pixels.

If you really have money to blow the 30" 16:10 displays are a thing of beauty. Once you go that large widescreen really does start making sense. In the 20" range it's just a fad for people who are bad at math.

Viper GTS

 

[Golgatha]

Originally posted by: Dethfrumbelo

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

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.

:roll: you apparently dont use the computer for anything aside from email and AIM. try doing audio or video editing side by side with a 4:3/5:4 and 16:10...the difference is huge. you can open up 2 word documents side by side, full view, or A-AF in excel from row 1 to 65, or 2 or 3 instances of maple/matlab/multisim/etc. i could go on and on.

LOL. I do tons of work in 3DSM and Maya at 1600x1200. And I also occasionally use Excel, etc. If I need it I can go to 1920x1440, it just doesn't look too sharp.

1920x1440 looks great on my CRT and I can do every resolution from there on down without anything looking fugly. My last CRT recently bit the dust and I bought a 19in LCD. Sold that on eBay so I could buy a nice used CRT. Saved about $150 in the process too.

BTW, aren't all LCD monitors 5:4, not 4:3? The only thing I think widescreen is better for would be games (maybe, as a lot of professional players run really low resolution) and definitely movies. Now when it comes to TVs, widescreen FTW (I still prefer CRT WS there too though).

 

[Viper GTS]

Originally posted by: Golgatha

BTW, aren't all LCD monitors 5:4, not 4:3?

Only the 1280x1024 panels, which pretty much means 19" non wide panels.

And I 100% concur on widescreen for TV's, 16:9 is the only way to go in fixed ratio HT displays.

I currently run two matching 21" CRT's, calibrated & ICC profiled with a colorimeter.

I'm not switching to LCD until I can get a 30" LED backlit panel.

Viper GTS

 

[kalrith]

Originally posted by: guidryp
Check newegg and see what the prices are really like rather than exaggerating to make your case. Here are some points in the 20.1" category:

Two cheapest 1680x1050: $299 (after mail in rebate), $316( refurb)
Two cheapest 1600x1200: $352 (refurb), $399 regular price.

The most expensive 20.1" is the new 1680x1050 NEC.

Much closer to a maximum $100 dollar difference. And if you are a dell shopper it is about a $50 dollar difference. Actually In Canada the wfp is more expensive.

Well, the company isn't going to sit around and wait to use a bunch of Dell coupons, so that's out of the question. I'm not in Canada, so that doesn't apply. Our situation at work is one that we DO NOT need more vertical space. I never said widescreens are better or that everyone should get one. But if we're trying to resolve the problem that our 19" LCDs and our 19" CRTs do not have enough horizontal space but plenty of vertical space, then the correct solution FOR US is to go with the widescreens. If they were the same price, then it would be a moot point. However, even with only $100 difference, that equals $2500 for our company that we do not have to spend or can spend on something else. The only point I was trying to make is that if someone does not need the extra vertical pixels and you do not want to spend the extra $50-100, then widescreen might be the appropriate choice.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Interesting how you speak for all 25 employees needs. I can always use the extra space where ever it is located. Yours is a rather specialized operation if everyone needs to only display facing documents exactly 1050 pixels high and no more.

They would have quite a fight on their hands if they try to replace my 1600x1200 monitor with a 1680x1050 one. For general usage at work (coding and documentation) or general usage at home (gaming,internet,coding, image editing, tv etc...) I would not willingly give up those extra 160 000 pixels of screen real estate.

Now if they move forward to 1920x1200 that would be nice. So would 2560x1600, or multiple monitors (the best solution IMO)

Maybe I am odd, but I am always wishing my monitor had more pixels in every dimension. But I bet I am not the only one.

 

[edmundoab]

i feel the widescreen does make the desktop look a little distorted.
Not used to it.

 

[edmundoab]

i feel the widescreen does make the desktop look a little distorted.
Not used to it.

 

[kalrith]

As the systems administrator I am in the position to speak for everyone's needs. I also make the decisions for what equipment we purchase. We are cycling a 20" widescreen around the office and allowing various people to use it for 2 weeks. The feedback has been great. I have to consider the very tight budget, and $100 extra per monitor does not justify the extra vertical pixels for OUR company. The only way in which our 19" CRTs (which most of our office still has) are too small is horizontally. Every other insurance company with which we have spoken that has their policies scanned is using two monitors. That is not feasible with our limited desk space.

I realize that we have a specific situation, but I also think that many people purchase widescreens to be able to view full-page documents or programs side-by-side. That's one of the reasons why my wife has a widescreen laptop. She is in college and can be typing a paper in Word right next to a page of her research (internet explorer, adobe reader, etc.). She went from a 15" 4:3 screen to a 14" widescreen, and she likes it much more for the extra horizontal space.

 

[imported_Crusader]

WIDESCREEN HORDE ATTAAAACCKKK!!!

Originally posted by: SelfishGene
I'm not terribly enthralled with widescreen.

Most games look like i'm peering through a very wide 17". IMO the vertical component of games is much more important because it adds "size". Eventually, when more games support widescreen natively, i think it might be a better format. But right now it just feels "stretched" to me. Only game off the top of my head that's without a doubt better is Age of Empires 3, because you get more screen realestate and that's always good for RTS.

But honestly, i prefer my 19" sized characters on my 19" moniter to my 17" sized figures on my 20" widescreen. I feel like with widescreen i have to squint to see things i used to see on my 19".

You'd be wrong as HL2 and Quake4 also support native WS.
Oblivion, Civilization 4, Heroes of Might and Magic 5 do as well.

Im one of the guys who can afford a 2405 but dont want to afford the rig to game at native res. 20inch LCD is the perfect balance, even with a few "lost pixels".
And you wont catch me counting. I can fit more on a 20inch widescreen than I can on a 20inch 4:3.

I'm much more productive in Visual Studio 05 in 1050x1680 10:16 than I am on a 4:3.

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS

Originally posted by: moonboy403

lol...it's true that widescreen loses pixel counts, but you're still viewing 20.1 inch worth of stuff

and no one would notice losing a few pixels :roll:

Except that a 16:10 20.1 is physically smaller than a 4:3 20". In fact, it's only ever so slightly larger than a 5:4 19" (181.48 in² vs 176.15 in²)

Go look for yourself

20" 4:3 is where it's at unless you can afford to get a large widescreen (in sizes where 4:3's don't exist). A 23/24" 1920x1200 is the smallest 16:10 I would ever consider, I refuse to purchase anything with <1200 vertical pixels.

If you really have money to blow the 30" 16:10 displays are a thing of beauty. Once you go that large widescreen really does start making sense. In the 20" range it's just a fad for people who are bad at math.

Viper GTS

The only reason that the 19" is close to the size of the 20" WS is because the pixels are biger. IMO, most 19" LCD's look grainy compared to 21 and 20" LCD's because of this. You could theoretically make a 1680x1050 WS monitor bigger than the 21" (or 24") screen as well if you just made the pixels bigger. If you want to compare screens with the same size pixels, you should be comparing the 1280x1024 screen as a 17".

http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?813c1a071feba8ab7ce2f0f8387d4654

When comparing real estate, you have to look at resolution and not size. There are laptops with 17" screens that have more screen real estate with physically smaller screens than many desktops. Agreed, the 1600x1200 screen has tad more overall real estate, but I went from a 21" CRT to a 20" WS LCD at home, and I'm happy with the switch. I still have a 21" CRT at work, so I still know what it's like to use that as well. Initially, I was concerned about giving up the height, but I find that I just tend to vertically stagger my windows more at work and don't really take advantage of the extra vertical pixels as much as I appreciate the extra horizontal pixels in games.

Honestly, I don't think that you can argue this with numbers either way. The monitor is a user interface device, and the biggest variable in that equation is the user, not the hardware. Logic and numbers do not always factor into human preference.

...then again, with out any new video cards coming out for a bit,. we have to find something to bicker about on these forums...

 

[Heartbreaker]

I use Solaris at work with a big control panel at the bottom that uses 100 vertical pixels. Thus leaving me with 1600x1100 (out of 1600 x 1200)and that feels quite vertically cramped for working. Losing another 150 would be out of the question. Even with 1200 vertical pixels, I usually bury the control panel. With a widescreen I would simply lose too much screen real estate which I completely fill. Using one at home might be alright, except I remote into work and I would have to scroll a widescreen up and down to see the whole screen.

I find it amusing that all the owners of widescreens protest that they don't need anything more than 1050, yet I have 1600x1200 and I would like more than 1200. Methinks they protest to much.

I will gladly take and use every pixel on a 2560x1600 when I can get it.

 

[mooncancook]

Your 20" 1600x1200 LCD is better than my 20" 1680x1050 widescreen LCD mathematically
[/thread]

 

[kalrith]

I think this is a good discussion, but the choice of a monitor is a very individual decision, so there isn't going to be some revelation that makes everyone agree that any one monitor size is the perfect choice. Some people want widescreen; some don't. Some people are satisfied with 800x600 resolution, and some people aren't satisfied with 1600x1200. It's much like a vehicle. Some people wish their 7-passenger SUV held more people, and others are perfectly satisfied with their 2-seater convertible.

 

[Cobolman]

It's all a matter of personal preference, and of course, what programs you use.

Virtually everything I work with has side toolbars, which make it much more useful to have horizontal space than vertical space.

 

[nitromullet]

If anyone wants to see a pretty accurate comparison between overall size and the differences in aspect ratios, check of this page:

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/cate...c=us&category_id=4009&cs=19&l=en&s=dhs

Just mouse over the little buttons to the right of the monitor, and it will change the monitor. IMO, the difference in what you see in regards to the images on the 20"W and the 20" pretty much sums up why I prefer widescreen. Of course, some people may prefer the 20"...

 

[straightalker]

Thanks for those monitor screen ratio websites.

I'm definitely only interested in a 20.1" LCD at a 4:3 ratio.

At the moment i have a 19" CRT 4:3, which equals the screen size of a 18" LCD 4:3

That's a jump for me from 155 sq./in. to 195 sq./in. in view area

The best deal i can find is SAMSUNG 204B-Black Black 20.1" 5ms LCD Monitor - Retail - 399$

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824001226

800 contrast and .255 pixel pitch on that one.

Anyone have another suggestion on a 20.1" LCD 4:3 ratio ?

The SAMSUNG rotates verticle which is extremely useful sometimes. Though i prefer VIEWSONIC products, but they usually have crappy stands that barely adjust.

All 24" LCD are currently priced outside my ballbark. In three years a 30"LCD will be affordable. especially since it will become an outdated technology...

http://colossalstorage.net/home_diskdrive.htm

The same above nanotechnology is being applied to new monitor designs that are far more clear and precise than current LCD's.

 

[RaiderJ]

Originally posted by: bunnyfubbles
The bad thing about 20" wide screens is that they're all 1680x1050, not good enough for 1080p content. I want at least WUXGA (1920x1200)

Widescreen is simply better all around; work (easier working with two documents ? side by side) ? play (WS gaming FTW) ? recreation (movies are made in widescreen, FS is for chumps)...

While I'm all for 1080p, your argument is basically moot because there isn't really any content available for 1080p. Maybe in a year (or six) when HD-DVD or Blu-Ray come into their own or more content is available digitally (assuming they would even work on a regular monitor).

Plus, it is really taxing on a system to run games at 1920x1200 - 1680x1050 is a bit more workable without having a high end system.


On an aside: Why the hell do LCD TV's come in a resolution of 1366x768?

 

[Muscles]

I have a ViewSonic VX2025WM, a Dell 2007FPW, and a Dell 2007FP at home so I think I'm qualified enough to add to the discussion. I prefer using my widescreens for games that have native WS support or if I'm watching movies but for work or desktop uses I prefer my 2007FP 1600x1200 4:3 screen. Side by side my 2007FP towers over the two widescreens and as funny as it sounds, the widescreens look small now. I'm going to have to work late tonight but after work I'll see about posting some pics of all 3 side by side.

 

[Muscles]

Originally posted by: Muscles
I have a ViewSonic VX2025WM, a Dell 2007FPW, and a Dell 2007FP at home so I think I'm qualified enough to add to the discussion. I prefer using my widescreens for games that have native WS support or if I'm watching movies but for work or desktop uses I prefer my 2007FP 1600x1200 4:3 screen. Side by side my 2007FP towers over the two widescreens and as funny as it sounds, the widescreens look small now. I'm going to have to work late tonight but after work I'll see about posting some pics of all 3 side by side.

As promised. Here are pics of the monitors and my home office setup.

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5

The pics don't do the 2007FP justice like I thought as for size

 

[raildogg]

Is watching movies or small movie clips better on a widescreen than on a regular 20' LCD?

How is text reading between the two? Which is easier on the eyes?

I'm debating between a regular 19' LCD and a 20' widescreen LCD.

Help please.

 

[Sureshot324]

Originally posted by: Crusader
Who cares about "lost pixels".. the pixels you do have a 20inch widescreen are actually USEFUL! Haha..

try coding with a rotated 20inch WS vs on a 20inch square. Or gaming, or movies.. pretty much anything is done better by a widescreen.

Counting pixels is a bad argument in selecting a screen.
An arguement that would make sense is usability, or color reproduction, or response time..

theres really nothing that a 20inch 4:3 display does better other than run legacy apps better due to a 4:3 native res.
I dont buy new computer parts for legacy apps.

Not to mention, Vista is designed for the WS length format.
Losing a few pixels is OK by me.. just give me the real future.

Not to mention the huge advantage WS gamers have in WS games like Half Life 2, Counterstrike, Day of Defeat ect.
Its almost cheating.

It's not really cheating. In most of those games you can adjust the fov so it's zoomed out more, if you really want. That way you can see more, but it's harder to aim.

When you think about it, a 20" fullscreen monitor is probably about the same width as a 17" widescreen, so why would the widescreen have an advantage? Basically bigger monitor=advantage.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Muscles

Originally posted by: Muscles
I have a ViewSonic VX2025WM, a Dell 2007FPW, and a Dell 2007FP at home so I think I'm qualified enough to add to the discussion. I prefer using my widescreens for games that have native WS support or if I'm watching movies but for work or desktop uses I prefer my 2007FP 1600x1200 4:3 screen. Side by side my 2007FP towers over the two widescreens and as funny as it sounds, the widescreens look small now. I'm going to have to work late tonight but after work I'll see about posting some pics of all 3 side by side.

As promised. Here are pics of the monitors and my home office setup.

Pic 1
Pic 2
Pic 3
Pic 4
Pic 5

The pics don't do the 2007FP justice like I thought as for size

After seeing those pictures, it makes the widescreen look more desirable to me. How is the Viewsonix VX2025 by the way? If I do buy a 20' widesceen, that would be the one I buy. Which is better, that or the Dell 2007FPW?

And is there a picture quality difference between the widescreens and the regular 20' FP.

I'm not sure but having a screen that wide horizontally will take time getting used to.

Sweet setup, btw. Must be very nice having that.