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

[exitous]

How would a 21 inch widescreen compare to a standard 19 inch LCD? I know a 20 inch widescreen has less vertical height, but would the 21 inch widescreen also have less height than a 19 inch?

 

[imported_Bleh]

Yup I switched from a 19inch dell p990 crt to a Dell 2005fpw 20.1in wide screen lcd and I'd never go back. Widescreen gaming is awesome, who cares if the height is equivalent to a 17 inch lcd, the human viewing area is naturally fit for a widescreen monitor, not some square screen.

 

[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.

 

[MrDudeMan]

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.

:thumbsup: i love when people tell me i am trying to justify my purchase (2x 2405FPWs). i wouldnt trade these babies for anything...i had 2x 2005FPWs before this, and 2x 20" 4:3 before that. no way in hell i would go back to the 4:3 EVER. even on the 2005s you can open up multiple word documents side by side and zoom to make them fit perfectly. that is much harder on a 4:3. i do a ton of work in excel and maple, so i can have 5-6 windows open at once on these monitors and see all of it. now that i added another video card and connected my TV and 2 other monitors, i have unlimited desktop space. all 5 are widescreen.

 

[MrDudeMan]

oh yeah, and coding on a WS turned portrait FTW.

 

[Heartbreaker]

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

I would say the "popular", fashionable thing seems to be aping the widescreen RuLeZ sentiment, without stopping to think.

It seems to be the minority who actually noticed that the widescreen 20" is nothing but a 4:3 20" with an inch and a half cut off the bottom.

I just shake my head in disbelief with all "widescreen is better for two pages side by side". Ya, that makes sense, Cut some off the bottom and things will fit better??

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

Or faulty thinking like this? Pixels are exactly what determines screen real estate. Practically every element of the interface takes up a set amount of pixels, more pixels and more fits, it is as basic as that.


I will restate again:

A: If you just like wide aspect screen because you find them aesthetically pleasing. Well fine, nothing wrong with that.

B: If you think that cutting an inch and half off the bottom of a 20" 4:3 somehow makes more stuff fit on the screen, then you are mentally deficient.

 

[akugami]

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.

I understand that UI elements take up a set amount of space but the amount of space lost due to lesser pixels is very minor compared to the useable space gained due to the aspect ratio. Let me put it another way, when someone is editing video or audio, the timeline is spread horizontally. A widescreen monitor will show this timeline in a much better fashion. It doesn't matter if the height has 150 less pixels or that you lost about an inch height wise in real physical size. You actually have more useable screen space to work with due to the added horizontal space. 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.

I'm not going to go measure how many pixels each menu bar is or each task bar or whatever other UI element you want to argue pixels about. All I know is that a widescreen LCD is much more conducive to the work I do and it is better for gaming. That is all I care about. You can agree to disagree but don't call someone mentally deficient because you disagree because all you're doing then is just showing what an idiot you are.

 

[Heartbreaker]

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.

 

[akugami]

You know what, you win. Everything works on pixels. Everything is fixed. It's not like fonts, cell sizes, etc are scalable and can be adjusted by the user. You're right. Everybody else is just shooting out of their rear end. Continue to be happy with your 150 pixels. :roll:

 

[Keeir]

As someone who wears glasses, I can say this. If I want to keep the entire vertical dimension of a screen framed by my glasses, I can sit alot closer to a 20.1" WS than a 20" 4:3. This allows me to make things (such as cells/fonts in excel) smaller on my screen relatively. Thus, I can make better use of the pixels. I could do the same on a 4:3 screen... I would just have to move my head rather than my eyes which does get annoying. ::shrug::

 

[MaceX]

I can't wait till someone develops a holographic display that can use any aspect ration. I hate being locked into a certain ratio!

 

[kmmatney]

I use a 21.3" Samsung at work (1600 x 1200) and its pretty sweet. I would consider it a downgrade if I had to use a 1680 x 1050 display. However 20" widescreens can be had a great prices these days, and 4:3 LCDs haven't kept up. Widescreens are better for movies, too. If you can handle the small pixzel size, the 20" widescreen is currently the sweet spot in price/performance.

 

[MrDudeMan]

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.

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.

 

[Heartbreaker]

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.

Yeah and you think having a 4:3 screen prevents you from using the same fonts?? Maybe you and akugami, whom you seem to share a braincell with, can get together and market that. Here is something to think about, but don't strain your collective braincell guys.

Here is the size of pixels on each panel:

2007fp Dot Pitch: 0.255 mm (Pixel Pitch)
2007wfp Dot Pitch: 0.258 mm (Pixel Pitch)

Now the astute would notice that the pixels are essentially the same size. So you will need to use the same size font, and the same size cells and thus you have essentially the same width to work with. Of course if you were astute you wouldn't continue to shoot mouth off when you don't know what you are talking about.

Again no argument if you just like the aspect ratio better.

But if you want to continue showing your ignorance by claiming widescreen pixels are somehow better than the same pixels in a 4:3 monitor, I will continue to point out that you are essentially clueless.

 

[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".

 

[Crescent13]

I love my NEC 20WMGX2!

 

[eLiu]

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.

2001FP...?

I have it...I love it.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Originally posted by: Crescent13
I love my NEC 20WMGX2!

No problem with that. Probably the best LCD on the market IMO. I would love a 23" 1920x1200 version.

 

[fbrdphreak]

I wish my 2005FPW would do 1920x1200 native and scale nicely to 1680x1050 for games; I find the DPI just too small for my ideal tastes, but I still like it.

Really wanna get another 2005FPW for serious multi-tasking. Gaming in main window, video playing in the second

 

[Cygnus X1]

19" Standard 12x10 res are king of the gaming monitors at the moment. Just look at the reviews and compatability. NUFF SAID!

I'm not just saying that because I own the best gaming monitor in the world either ATM.

 

[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.

 

[Heartbreaker]

I would definitely prefer at 20" WS to a 12x10 19", but $200 between which screens. Are they comparable?

In Canada the 2007fp ($599) is actually cheaper than the 2007wfp ($649), so the comparison hardly seems retarded to me.

 

[forbin]

i was referring to the fact that 16x12 20" lcds run 500$+ (american)

its easy now to find 16x10 20.1"ws for about 300$ now.

 

[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

 

[moonboy403]

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

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: