Why all the hate for1920x1080 displays?

[yh125d]

I strongly prefer 1080p for my home computer. And I do bits of everything, not just movies. For work though (CAD), I still prefer 16:10, but since I don't work from home I don't have to worry about it

 

[mv2devnull]

I went from 1600x1200 to 1920x1080.. and I missed the vertical space at first, but after moving my taskbar to the side instead of the bottom, I didn't miss it all that much anymore.

I've had taskbar (of fvwm2/xfce4) on the side as long as I can remember (and a bit longer), already on 4:3 screens. Therefore, I could not compensate for the loss of pixels like you did.

Once you get to see a larger screen, you'll never accept less any more.

 

[Rebel_L]

I always figure its from what people are used to, Ive used 1200 lines of vertical space for for over 6+ years now, adjusting to something less is always more difficult than to adjusting to something more. Most people have an easy time with and upgrade (not just for computers, for anything in general) but taking a downgrade, even a fairly small one is usually harder to get used too.

 

[Silenus]

Ugh. It boggles my mind how widespread 16:9 is. I mean, it's great for movies, and SOME games (certainly not all). But thats it. For EVERYTHING ELSE you would do, 16:10 is vastly better IMO. Now I don't know about you...but I don't sit and watch movies on my computer monitor. That only leaves some types of games. I'd much rather have 16:10 for the majority of what I do on my computer than the few times a wider view would be nice in a game.

I would never voluntarily get a 16:9 monitor. For me 16:10 will always be better.

 

[arredondo]

I use my computer primarily for browsing the web and gaming. For those purposes, I'd never go with 16x10 over 16x9 simply because I do both activities from my couch on my 60" HDTV. Since I have no intention of being chained to a computer desk at home ever again, a bigger screen overall with a more narrow width ratio from the comfy couch is superior to a smaller but longer screen IMHO.

 

[exar333]

I always figure its from what people are used to, Ive used 1200 lines of vertical space for for over 6+ years now, adjusting to something less is always more difficult than to adjusting to something more. Most people have an easy time with and upgrade (not just for computers, for anything in general) but taking a downgrade, even a fairly small one is usually harder to get used too.

I never had less than 1200 lines of vertical space since 1997; I will die before I downgrade my vertical space on my monitor. Settling for 1080 is rediculous IMHO, and brings us back to the old 4:3 1280x1024 days with some extra space to the side. I actually prefer a 4:3 screen to a 16:9; the 16:9 screen is crap for me.

I use my TV for movies, and I game/browse/work on my PC. Everything but movies is much better on 16:10.

 

[exar333]

Ugh. It boggles my mind how widespread 16:9 is. I mean, it's great for movies, and SOME games (certainly not all). But thats it. For EVERYTHING ELSE you would do, 16:10 is vastly better IMO. Now I don't know about you...but I don't sit and watch movies on my computer monitor. That only leaves some types of games. I'd much rather have 16:10 for the majority of what I do on my computer than the few times a wider view would be nice in a game.

I would never voluntarily get a 16:9 monitor. For me 16:10 will always be better.

+1.

I think 16:9 seems "so good" to younger people who grew up on the crappy 1st and 2nd gen LCD screens. For those who remember good 19-21'' displays with 1600x1200 minimum, 1080p is pretty weaksauce.

 

[Compddd]

2560 x 1600 for me or bust

 

[iGas]

The 28" monitor arrived 5 minutes ago, and this is the first post while viewing with it at 1920x1200.

The old 19" was 1280x1024 was great but at times I have to scroll around to read the entire screen was somewhat a small annoyance.

My 1024p wide screen 55" TV felt a bit wide when I use it for the internet, hence I prefer my 19" monitor over it for all computing tasks except for watching movies.

IMHO, the new monitor at 16:10 does feel a bit wide but I can live with it over that of the way too wide 16:9 TV aspect for computing.

 

[Patrick Wolf]

Ugh. It boggles my mind how widespread 16:9 is. I mean, it's great for movies, and most games (certainly not all).

Fixed. All games that properly support 16:9 benefit from it; which is virtually every game released since the 360 came out, and even quite a few before that. Being able to see more of your surroundings at any given time is never a bad thing, even if it's not always very helpful.

 

[tedrodai]

Fixed. All games that properly support 16:9 benefit from it; which is virtually every game released since the 360 came out, and even quite a few before that. Being able to see more of your surroundings at any given time is never a bad thing, even if it's not always very helpful.

Why do you say that most games benefit from 16:9? I'm not a graphics programmer, so I'm not aware...but is it considered the best practice to scale based on the ratio of your resolution instead of the total number of pixels (in whichever direction), regardless of what type of game you're making? Now, I gather that FPS definitely tend to scale in this manner, and maybe all first person games...but what about non-first person games? I play some FPSs, sure, but there are LOTS of games out there that aren't from a first person perspective, so I wonder if that statement isn't biased towards a certain genre.

You can't argue that 16:9 gives you a better horizontal FOV if it's properly supported, but then 16:10 gives you a better vertical FOV if properly supported, and more pixels is more pixels if the game doesn't give a lick about the ratio.

 

[arredondo]

16x9 support is best for games if you'd rather play on a large HDTV instead of going 16x10 on a smaller monitor.

 

[FalseChristian]

Because if it gets any lower we're gonna have LEDs 5 feet wide and 2 inches high. Give me 1920x1200 or give me death!

 

[mirandamarquez]

I run a couple of older 1920 x 1200 monitors on this machine.

They are getting a bit tired now and so I borrowed a friend's 1920 x 1080 to see the difference in the computing experience between the two resolutions.

I'd say the loss of vertical lines is a deal breaker for me.

The 1900 x 1080 resolution looks squat and involves a lot more scrolling in day to day work use.

I realise this resolution is a lot cheaper for the manufacturers to produce and that it is ideal for a television to display HD programmes.

The manufacturers make an economy both in volume of production and in the quantities of materials used in each screen.

Whilst I appreciate the reduction in unit price to the consumer, the simple fact remains that a computer monitor is not a television.

In terms of productivity, I really missed the extra vertical space that 1920 x 1200 provides over 1900 x 1080.

The shift to fewer vertical lines would be a retrograde step, in my opinion, so when I finally do upgrade these monitors, it will be to 24" ( the biggest size that I can fit on this desk ) with a resolution of 1920 x 1200.

MM

 

[OmegaShadow]

been using 1920x1080 for a year now and it's alright. nvr used a 1920x1200 monitor yet but if i do i guess i'll see the difference.

 

[iGas]

I run a couple of older 1920 x 1200 monitors on this machine.

They are getting a bit tired now and so I borrowed a friend's 1920 x 1080 to see the difference in the computing experience between the two resolutions.

I'd say the loss of vertical lines is a deal breaker for me.

The 1920 x 1080 resolution looks squat and involves a lot more scrolling in day to day work use.

I realise this resolution is a lot cheaper for the manufacturers to produce and that it is ideal for a television to display HD programmes.

The manufacturers make an economy both in volume of production and in the quantities of materials used in each screen.

Whilst I appreciate the reduction in unit price to the consumer, the simple fact remains that a computer monitor is not a television.

In terms of productivity, I really missed the extra vertical space that 1920 x 1200 provides over 1200 x 1080.

The shift to fewer vertical lines would be a retrograde step, in my opinion, so when I finally do upgrade these monitors, it will be to 24" ( the biggest size that I can fit on this desk ) with a resolution of 1920 x 1200.

MM

LOL, a 24" would just fit my desk, but got a 28" instead hence I'm on the look out for a new desk on CL.

 

[mirandamarquez]

Yeah, well, Chief Brody says I need a bigger desk, too.

MM

 

[toyota]

Yeah, well, Chief Brody says I need a bigger desk, too.

MM

you need a bigger room...

 

[SunnyD]

Nothing... I mean NOTHING sucks worse than 1366x768. Talk about a bastard resolution!

 

[psoomah]

I use my computer primarily for browsing the web and gaming. For those purposes, I'd never go with 16x10 over 16x9 simply because I do both activities from my couch on my 60" HDTV. Since I have no intention of being chained to a computer desk at home ever again, a bigger screen overall with a more narrow width ratio from the comfy couch is superior to a smaller but longer screen IMHO.

Ditto. A 61" Samsung LED RPTV in my case.

Bonus: Viewing from 7 feet is FAR easier on the eyes.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Nothing... I mean NOTHING sucks worse than 1366x768. Talk about a bastard resolution!

Except this 800x480 netbook with 7" screen.

 

[RavenSEAL]

I love 1920*1080 on my 21.5"

It really is more about the resolution, but again, i was on a budget. I would have gone higher, but $150 for 1080p was too good to pass up. Got a switch behind mine between PC, PS3 and TV. Can't complain, i ditched my old 27" fat tv and my 17" CRT monitor all at once. Couldn't be happier.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Yeah, well, Chief Brody says I need a bigger desk, too.

MM

D:

 

[tweakboy]

No hate, PC can do higher definition. like 1920x1200 or the crazy res I use. gg and gb

 

[konakona]

I understand we have some fundamental differences in our needs / preferences, so I respect your choice.

Not to be an inquisitive bastard or anything, but isn't gaming on a couch a bit awkward? I have a friend of mine that actually does that - he puts his keyboard on his lap and a mouse on the couch with his right arm stretch out real low. Just to see what it's like, I took a test drive on his setup and it felt horrible. Not only both the keyboard and mouse weren't sitting flush against a firm base, but my overstretched right arm was killing me. The mouse had to be a wireless one - not my preference for gaming. Games that only accepted keyboard as input (e.g. fighters) were even worse as it was hard to balance the keyboard on my lap with both hands hitting the buttons. So taken all that together, is gaming really more comfy on a couch? Just trying to see what your perspective is.

Personally I can't imagine watching anything without having access to quick and precise pause / rewind / screenshot button (no remotes don't cut it), but I admit that's just my viewing habit.