Is anyone else annoyed by the lack of 4:3 LCDs and notebooks?

[Virtual Conan]

I prefer 1600x1200 but these days there aren't any notebooks that I can find which are that resolution. The main stream resolution for notebooks these days seems to be 1400x900. Ugh.

I'd prefer to have a notebook/docking station hooked up to two 21.3, 4:3, 1600x1200 monitors and also have that same resolution with the onboard LCD. The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Anyone else feel like this

 

[reallyscrued]

Nope. I like widescreen. Ever need two windows cascaded side by side? Ever watch something in 16:10/16:9 format? Ever take that eyepatch off?

I get more pissed off that games only recently started offering the option to change the aspect ratio without messing with config files.

Plus it just makes more sense with a laptop, the keyboard is is long.

 

[yh125d]

No. The natural human field of vision is widescreen, so....

 

[nitromullet]

I'd prefer to have a notebook/docking station hooked up to two 21.3, 4:3, 1600x1200 monitors and also have that same resolution with the onboard LCD.

Are notebooks that support triple head common? I don't think I've ever seen this.

 

[Virtual Conan]

Most docking stations now days have an RGB and DVI output. When the notebook is docked the lid would be closed.

 

[reallyscrued]

BTW, if you're looking for pixel density, Studio 16s or any full HD laptop has 1920x1080....doesn't get much sicker than that.

Sorry buddy. 4:3 is out. 16:9 is in. Embrace.

 

[440sixpack]

I don't like it either. I value height pixels more than width pixels, especially since I don't really watch movies on my laptop.

Two windows side-by-side does little for me as even the few times I would need that scenario, A) I find most widescreens are still too narrow to comfortably fit (for me) two apps side by side, and B) it irritates the hell out of me having to scroll vertically so much since only a few lines of text or other vertical space are available on most widescreens. Now get big enough like with my 30" and then the widescreen issue is moot.

 

[mwmorph]

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
BTW, if you're looking for pixel density, Studio 16s or any full HD laptop has 1920x1080....doesn't get much sicker than that.

Sorry buddy. 4:3 is out. 16:9 is in. Embrace.

Are you sure? I thought standard rez was 1920x1200 an monitors came 16:10.

 

[ilkhan]

I wouldn't mind a modern IPS 4:3 20" panel to replace my 2007FP as a secondary screen. But in general, no. 16:10 is fine. 16:9 is...just OK.

 

[TurtleCrusher]

God no. I'm never going back.

Widescreen is soooooo much better.

Movies, Games, Studying, Etc..

 

[dev0lution]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

 

[octopus41092]

No. I can't think of a situation where widescreen is not just as good if not better.

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: octopus41092
No. I can't think of a situation where widescreen is not just as good if not better.

Agreed.

 

[hans007]

Originally posted by: octopus41092
No. I can't think of a situation where widescreen is not just as good if not better.

if you have 2 monitors, its probably better to just have 4:3.

because dual widescreens is too wide i'd figure. especially if its the more common 16:9 now.

At my office I have dual 2007fp and at least for programming its not bad with dual like that. of course no one makes 4:3 20" monitors anymore so it doesnt matter. its not ahuge difference either way though.

i think 16:10 is a great compromise, too bad a lot of monitors are going to 16:9 now (and they are only doing it to share panel glass with TVs and save money)

 

[Virtual Conan]

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

I've seen it and it isn't the specs I am looking for... it's not big enough. I guess you didn't read my post very well...

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

I've seen it and it isn't the specs I am looking for... it's not big enough. I guess you didn't read my post very well...

What, cause it's off by an inch? Cause that's the only really noticeable difference. The monitor he linked is 16x12 and 4:3 but it's 20.1" while the one you said you were using/wanted was 21.3".

If you're looking for a 14x9 pixel resolution monitor at those sizes...you won't find any. It's impossible. They might have made some early on but having looked at a ton of monitors for both myself, work, and for friends, I haven't seen any.

It's now a widescreen world. As others have said, our vision is widescreen and wider aspect ratios look better and more natural. Movies are increasingly shown in widescreen format. Every company making computers is moving to a widescreen aspect. The only thing you can do is move with it, because eventually you're going to need an upgrade, or stock up on old equipment.

Originally posted by: hans007
i think 16:10 is a great compromise, too bad a lot of monitors are going to 16:9 now (and they are only doing it to share panel glass with TVs and save money)

I also think 16:10 is better than 16:9. Might not sound like a lot but you lose a bit of vertical real estate and it is noticeable. It just doesn't feel quite right.

 

[reallyscrued]

Originally posted by: mwmorph

Originally posted by: reallyscrued
BTW, if you're looking for pixel density, Studio 16s or any full HD laptop has 1920x1080....doesn't get much sicker than that.

Sorry buddy. 4:3 is out. 16:9 is in. Embrace.

Are you sure? I thought standard rez was 1920x1200 an monitors came 16:10.

Not the best link, but I'm not sure how to link you to the setup page of a dell laptop with specific options already chosen.

http://www.mobilecomputermag.c...xps-1340-and-1640.html

Top of our shopping list for the 16 is the potentially stunning, $250 optional, FullHD RGBLED LCD display with 1920x1080 resolution. That baby boasts RGBLED 16.7 million colours with 100 percent of the color gamut the 40 to 60% most manage. That should make this the laptop for Blu-Ray movies and gaming with super vibrant colours, a 130-degree viewing angle and a fast 8ms response time. Drool.

 

[Virtual Conan]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

I've seen it and it isn't the specs I am looking for... it's not big enough. I guess you didn't read my post very well...

What, cause it's off by an inch? Cause that's the only really noticeable difference. The monitor he linked is 16x12 and 4:3 but it's 20.1" while the one you said you were using/wanted was 21.3".

If you're looking for a 14x9 pixel resolution monitor at those sizes...you won't find any. It's impossible. They might have made some early on but having looked at a ton of monitors for both myself, work, and for friends, I haven't seen any.

It's now a widescreen world. As others have said, our vision is widescreen and wider aspect ratios look better and more natural. Movies are increasingly shown in widescreen format. Every company making computers is moving to a widescreen aspect. The only thing you can do is move with it, because eventually you're going to need an upgrade, or stock up on old equipment.

Originally posted by: hans007
i think 16:10 is a great compromise, too bad a lot of monitors are going to 16:9 now (and they are only doing it to share panel glass with TVs and save money)

I also think 16:10 is better than 16:9. Might not sound like a lot but you lose a bit of vertical real estate and it is noticeable. It just doesn't feel quite right.

Gues again.

Newegg has several, but as I mentioned in my original post (which no one seems to have read) the cost for these monitors is very high, which I find annoying. I love how 95% of users read threads and reply to threads simply to attempt to "prove the person wrong". It's comical.

I guess a lot of you don't use an LCD for work? Vertical space is king when it comes to office productivity which is why I prefer two, 4:3 monitors that are 1600x1200. Having two 1920x1200 screens side by side is much to wide to encompass in your field of view without constantly looking left or right - and every other widescreen resolution is lacking when it comes to vertical space, some aren't even 1000 pixels.

 

[akugami]

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

I've seen it and it isn't the specs I am looking for... it's not big enough. I guess you didn't read my post very well...

What, cause it's off by an inch? Cause that's the only really noticeable difference. The monitor he linked is 16x12 and 4:3 but it's 20.1" while the one you said you were using/wanted was 21.3".

If you're looking for a 14x9 pixel resolution monitor at those sizes...you won't find any. It's impossible. They might have made some early on but having looked at a ton of monitors for both myself, work, and for friends, I haven't seen any.

It's now a widescreen world. As others have said, our vision is widescreen and wider aspect ratios look better and more natural. Movies are increasingly shown in widescreen format. Every company making computers is moving to a widescreen aspect. The only thing you can do is move with it, because eventually you're going to need an upgrade, or stock up on old equipment.

Gues again.

Newegg has several, but as I mentioned in my original post (which no one seems to have read) the cost for these monitors is very high, which I find annoying. I love how 95% of users read threads and reply to threads simply to attempt to "prove the person wrong". It's comical.

I guess a lot of you don't use an LCD for work? Vertical space is king when it comes to office productivity which is why I prefer two, 4:3 monitors that are 1600x1200. Having two 1920x1200 screens side by side is much to wide to encompass in your field of view without constantly looking left or right - and every other widescreen resolution is lacking when it comes to vertical space, some aren't even 1000 pixels.

For someone who is disparaging others for reading comprehension (twice in one thread no less) you might want to tone it down if you want to be taken seriously and have a pleasant stay on these forums.

It seems that I read what you wrote correctly. I guessed you were either belittling dev0lution for linking to a 4:3 16x12 20.1" monitor or looking for a 14x9 resolution monitor at 20" or 21". What I found wrong with your response was you're nearing a personal attack on dev0lution. Furthermore, I love how you find fault with other users for replying to threads to prove someone else wrong when you did the same thing in your response to dev0lution.

Why was I right in my original post in this thread? I asked if you were criticizing his (dev0lution) reading comprehension because he linked a 20.1" monitor instead of a 21.3" monitor. I pointed out that it was not a huge deal between a 20.1" monitor and a 21.3" monitor since it translates to less than 1" vertical and horizontal length difference, though I was wrong on the exact size differences.

Considering that one usually sits 2' to 3' away from a monitor, it's not a huge difference either way. I, and probably 99% of the population, would say it's not a noticeable difference when the monitors are at least 2' away. A 20.1" 4:3 monitor would be 12" height by 16" width. A 21.3" 4:3 monitor would be 12.8" height by 17" width. Numbers are rounded. I am highly highly highly doubtful anyone would notice the difference between two 20.1" 4:3 monitors on one desk at 2' or further vs two 21.3" 4:3 monitors on a different desk at 2' or further. Especially with both being the same pixel resolution.

The correct response to dev0lution (yes I'm saying you're wrong) would have been to say that you do notice the 1.2" difference and the slight difference in size is important to you. It's your eyes. It's your money. It's your opinions. Just don't go giving grief to others over their opinions. That's not to say that dev0lution could not have coached his response in a better manner. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Vertical space is not everything. A 24" 16:10 monitor will yield the same vertical height as a 21" 4:3 monitor. Furthermore, many of the better widescreen LCD's also allow one to pivot the monitors. If you wanted vertical height, a 20.1" 16:10 LCD that can pivot becomes a monitor with 17" height. Do not assume that just because people like widescreens they don't use LCD's at work. I use a widescreen monitor at work all of the time. It is a godsend when you're working on Excel spreadsheets that can have data running horizontally. I also have two widescreen monitors at home and, depending on what I am doing, I pivot one so that if I need the vertical space then I have it. Beats the crap out of any 4:3 monitor any day.

 

[Virtual Conan]

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: akugami

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

Originally posted by: dev0lution

Originally posted by: Virtual Conan

The problem is even if you manage to find the right notebook the accompanying monitors are huge $$$ ($800 each or more - heck, that's a 42" TV for that money)!

Dell Ultrasharp 2007FP - 4:3 1600x1200 20.1" - $379

Guess you didn't look too hard..

I've seen it and it isn't the specs I am looking for... it's not big enough. I guess you didn't read my post very well...

What, cause it's off by an inch? Cause that's the only really noticeable difference. The monitor he linked is 16x12 and 4:3 but it's 20.1" while the one you said you were using/wanted was 21.3".

If you're looking for a 14x9 pixel resolution monitor at those sizes...you won't find any. It's impossible. They might have made some early on but having looked at a ton of monitors for both myself, work, and for friends, I haven't seen any.

It's now a widescreen world. As others have said, our vision is widescreen and wider aspect ratios look better and more natural. Movies are increasingly shown in widescreen format. Every company making computers is moving to a widescreen aspect. The only thing you can do is move with it, because eventually you're going to need an upgrade, or stock up on old equipment.

Gues again.

Newegg has several, but as I mentioned in my original post (which no one seems to have read) the cost for these monitors is very high, which I find annoying. I love how 95% of users read threads and reply to threads simply to attempt to "prove the person wrong". It's comical.

I guess a lot of you don't use an LCD for work? Vertical space is king when it comes to office productivity which is why I prefer two, 4:3 monitors that are 1600x1200. Having two 1920x1200 screens side by side is much to wide to encompass in your field of view without constantly looking left or right - and every other widescreen resolution is lacking when it comes to vertical space, some aren't even 1000 pixels.

For someone who is disparaging others for reading comprehension (twice in one thread no less) you might want to tone it down if you want to be taken seriously and have a pleasant stay on these forums.

It seems that I read what you wrote correctly. I guessed you were either belittling dev0lution for linking to a 4:3 16x12 20.1" monitor or looking for a 14x9 resolution monitor at 20" or 21". What I found wrong with your response was you're nearing a personal attack on dev0lution. Furthermore, I love how you find fault with other users for replying to threads to prove someone else wrong when you did the same thing in your response to dev0lution.

Why was I right in my original post in this thread? I asked if you were criticizing his (dev0lution) reading comprehension because he linked a 20.1" monitor instead of a 21.3" monitor. I pointed out that it was not a huge deal between a 20.1" monitor and a 21.3" monitor since it translates to less than 1" vertical and horizontal length difference, though I was wrong on the exact size differences.

Considering that one usually sits 2' to 3' away from a monitor, it's not a huge difference either way. I, and probably 99% of the population, would say it's not a noticeable difference when the monitors are at least 2' away. A 20.1" 4:3 monitor would be 12" height by 16" width. A 21.3" 4:3 monitor would be 12.8" height by 17" width. Numbers are rounded. I am highly highly highly doubtful anyone would notice the difference between two 20.1" 4:3 monitors on one desk at 2' or further vs two 21.3" 4:3 monitors on a different desk at 2' or further. Especially with both being the same pixel resolution.

The correct response to dev0lution (yes I'm saying you're wrong) would have been to say that you do notice the 1.2" difference and the slight difference in size is important to you. It's your eyes. It's your money. It's your opinions. Just don't go giving grief to others over their opinions. That's not to say that dev0lution could not have coached his response in a better manner. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Vertical space is not everything. A 24" 16:10 monitor will yield the same vertical height as a 21" 4:3 monitor. Furthermore, many of the better widescreen LCD's also allow one to pivot the monitors. If you wanted vertical height, a 20.1" 16:10 LCD that can pivot becomes a monitor with 17" height. Do not assume that just because people like widescreens they don't use LCD's at work. I use a widescreen monitor at work all of the time. It is a godsend when you're working on Excel spreadsheets that can have data running horizontally. I also have two widescreen monitors at home and, depending on what I am doing, I pivot one so that if I need the vertical space then I have it. Beats the crap out of any 4:3 monitor any day.

It's obvious that you love to hear yourself talk. A few quick things.

1.) I returned the same candor that was delivered to me by dev0lution. Again, read more, type less. I suppose you missed his post and immediately looked to pounce on the OP with the low post count. Thanks for playing. Oh, and I don't need your permission or right of passage to post on this forum.

2.) No assumptions were made about widescreen users not using them at work. Again, read, read, read. I asked a question. Read, read, read, read. Also, strictly speaking about the physical space on an LCD screen a 1600x1200 screen provides more space than a 1920x1080 screen or the much, much more typical notebook resolutions (this thread IS about notebooks as well, but since you didn't READ that, you glanced over it) of 1440x900.

I feel like I've wasted enough time talking to you, obviously your only goal here is to pester me, as you've made clear in your posts.

Thanks to everyone else who posted here with a genuine interest in the topic, I value your opinions!

 

[phexac]

Only thing I am annoyed with is that it took this long to migrate to widescreen.

 

[akugami]

My first post in response to you, Virtual Conan, was not negative. The fact is you insulted me first with your comment about my reading comprehension.

In my, as you put it, long winded response I explained why I thought the difference between a 20.1" and a 21.3" monitor was negligible. A lot of it is opinion but I would wager that most would agree with me. Instead of giving a proper counter argument on why you felt differently, you zeroed in on perceived attacks on you.

I also think you also need to follow your own advice and read what you yourself wrote. You wrote, "I guess a lot of you don't use an LCD for work? Vertical space is king when it comes to office productivity..." in response to many of us advocating widescreen LCD's. Yet, in your latest response you wrote "No assumptions were made about widescreen users not using them at work." Your two responses contradict each other. First you say others lack experience in an office environment. The implication is otherwise they'd agree with you that vertical space is the most desirable aspect in a work LCD. You then try to make a 180 degree turn when I show how a widescreen was actually preferred in a work environment. I also showed how a widescreen can be better than a traditional 4:3 monitor when viewing documents because it can pivot and change it's aspect ratio from 16:10 to a 10:16 giving you more vertical space to work with.

I am not here to pester you. Seriously, who are you and why are you so important that I would take the time to bother you? I came in with the intention of giving my opinions and I felt like I did that to the best of my ability.

I can not help it if you are taking every little response as a perceived attack. I don't disagree that dev0lution could have couched his response better. See my previous post if you think I disagree with that. However, two wrongs do not make a right. You could have taken the high road since dev0lution's response was, while not nice, not exactly that bad either. Instead, you started throwing personal insults. While you may not have started the negative tone, you sure gave it a good kick in the rear to get it rolling.

The fact is that in this thread, all you've done is moan and groan about how great 4:3 is and how widescreen sucks for work uses. I've shown you how a widescreen monitor can be superior to a 4:3 monitor. Granted some of these positives do not necessarily translate to notebooks well since you can't pivot the screen on most notebooks. But even in the notebook design, people have chimed in with why a widescreen aspect ratio is more natural and fit the design of a notebook better. A lot of why many people feel widescreen is better is based on real world usage. You can disagree that it is the best for you but just because someone disagrees with you is no reason to belittle anyone.

Discussions are in many aspects like living creatures. They can diverge and run into tangents. These little side discussions can lead to many positive talks. Sometimes these side discussions will merge back into the original topic and sometimes they run completely counter to it. Many great discussions have been had that had nothing to do with the original topic. If you can't deal with it then don't bother having a discussion.


*EDIT*

Done with this discussion as the OP has had his mind set on how great 4:3 is and I don't think anyone is going to change his mind regardless of how much they explain their reasons for such thoughts.

 

[sindows]

I agree with OP especially on notebooks. 1280 pixels is not nearly enough horizontal resolution to be considered useful. I use 1280 as an example because the majority of laptops sold are sold with wxga resolution. Now its getting worse with the industry heading towards 19:10, 1366 is still not wide enough to do anything comfortably and the horizontal pixels which are far more valuable, are getting lower and lower. The only point where widescreen makes sense is at 1680x1050 and even then its doubtful. I have a 15.4" with the latter resolution and I've used a IBM 15" with 1600x1200 and I think the IBM was a lot better. The extra 80 horizontal pixels were barely missed while I really missed the 150 vertical pixels.


As far as ws being more "natural" for human eyes, I disagree from a usability perspective. Although we see see more things horizontally, we still focus on the things that are right in front of us so it doesn't really matter. Anything extended too far out beyond our peripheral vision is wasted.

 

[exar333]

1600x1200 died a slow death a while back...your best bet is to find a good quality CRT to run that resolution.

1920x1200 FTW.