Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Information > Standard or Widescreen monitor?

Reply
Thread Tools

Standard or Widescreen monitor?

 
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:07:52 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:33:29 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2006-07-21, ThePunisher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>> "Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a 19 inch or larger CRT that can display up to 1920x1440
>>>>> resolution or over. Then you will be able to watch HD movies at
>>>>> 1920x1080 and tile 4 wordprocessor or internet explorer windows on
>>>>> the screen at the same time and have no problems with loss of usable
>>>>> area. (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the
>>>> same
>>>> time would be?
>>>
>>>A quarter the size of said 19 inch or larger CRT. Have you any idea how
>>>silly that question was?

>>
>>
>> He was making a point, about how poor a choice it would be
>> to get a larger CRT and have the 4 windows tiled, and he was
>> quite right, it would be a very poor and clumsy way to work.
>> "IF" someone actually needed 4 open windows the obvious
>> choice is two widescreen LCDs.

>
>Rubbish. 16:9 will barley give you one reasonable sized window for word and
>certainly not two.



You really think 4 tiled windows on a CRT will be
"reasonably sized"?

I'd tried it your way, it's only the last resort if all you
have to work with is the one monitor and for some odd reason
you really need to see all 4 windows at once.

Generally speaking, it's rather silly on a windowing OS to
do it, instead of just using a lower resolution and
maximizing the app currently being used.

Dual widescreen LCDs are by far far better than what you
suggest. It's not even close at all, you have no clue just
how much better the LCD option is.


>It has no advantage over 4:3 whatsoever as far as
>computing is concerned.


For two side-by-side windows open, widescreen is better.
For general computing with only one open, 4:3 or 5:4 can be
better or not, depending on the task. Probably better
overall, on average for typical work but we weren't talking
about typical work, we were talking about this crazy idea
you had to aim for using a CRT to tile 4 windows to a tiny
blurred size to work with them.

>Its not wide enough to stand two applications side
>by side and its two shallow to stack them on to of each other.


Widescreen is wide enough. It's not "perfect", but vastly
better than a 2 x 2 tile on a CRT, ESPECIALLY the PITA way
you described it by manually overlapping portions of each
window.


>
>At 1920x1440 I have the equivalent to two Cinemascope screens stacked on top
>of each other so no need to swivel on my chair or strain my neck to see
>every application, and much less space is used on my desk.



You have a poor solution and don't even realize how much
better it could be to move to two high res widescreen LCDs.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:00:39 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:30:44 +0100, "Agamemnon"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"ThePunisher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:9t5wg.16412$(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>> "Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>
>>>>> Get a 19 inch or larger CRT that can display up to 1920x1440
>>>>> resolution or over. Then you will be able to watch HD movies at
>>>>> 1920x1080 and tile 4 wordprocessor or internet explorer windows on
>>>>> the screen at the same time and have no problems with loss of usable
>>>>> area. (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the
>>>> same
>>>> time would be?
>>>
>>>Since I am using 1920x1440 resolution right now the answer is yes. The
>>>size
>>>of each of the windows would be 93% of the window size when expanded to
>>>full
>>>screen if you were using 1024x768 resolution.

>>
>> No, not the size, only the # of pixels. BIG difference on a
>> CRT.

>
>My CRT can go up to 2048x1536 pixels


Yes and that's EVEN WORSE.

The higher you put your CRT, the poorer it will be!



 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:54:19 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>I will be buying a new monitor but which type should I buy?


Only you can answer that. It's subjective.
We could try to predict how a different resolution or aspect
ratio might effect your habits, but it would be far too easy
to be wrong as crystal balls are seldom guaranteed accurate.


>I will admit I am not widescreens biggest 'fan', however what I
>like is pretty immaterial as I can't control the format in which
>other people produce 'media'.


If thinking about single-use-at-a-time, widescreen LCD are
best for newer commercially produced video and a nice effect
on some games but not well enough supported on games in
general (though certainly in the future, support for them
will rise but how long and whether you are still using the
same LCD at that point for your primary gaming monitor (if
you game on one at all), we cannot predict either).



>I currently have a bog standard 14" CRT monitor but I think I will
>be going flatscreen (LCD etc) because I want a good sized monitor
>and CRT takes up too much room really.


Before my first LCD I thought that too, it'll be nice for it
to take up less space. Now I have a lot of empty space
behind my monitor. Someday I'll put something behind it to
take up the space, maybe.

Mostly I love the per-pixel clarity, vastly diminished
flicker (I can discern even 100Hz refresh rate though I can
work ok with 75Hz or above), and considering your present
monitor seems older and possibly curved, it would be lower
glare too unless the LCD you choose has a hard coating or
plate over it. That can increase the perceived contrast,
but overall I still prefer uncoated (except on a laptop
where the extra protection is nice).


>Even now some sites seem to be standard and other widescreen so
>whatever I get it wil be 'wrong'. (Thanks to the 'inventor' of widescreen).


Some 'sites were always wrong and always will be because the
creator foolishly tries to fit everything and the kitchen
sink on the page, or possibly as bad, they try to have vast
open areas of wasted space so they can have more colored
gradients.


>
>Do any of you have a WS monitor?


Yes, and non.

>
>Do you like them?


If I had only one, it'd be 4:3, 1600x1200.
That's my suggestion unless you have a specific reason to
pick something else.

>
>I kind of see a big problem with them because obviously they are too sort in
>height.
>For example, many PDF documents are A4 page size, this is a problem in say
>Adobe Acrobat because even on a standard monitor you can only see about half
>the page, it will be much worse on a WS. I feel like turning my monitor
>through
>90 degrees, can you do this with some monitors?


With some (typically mid to higher end models), but you may
find you don't need to do it at all because each pixel is so
much more clear and because (assuming you get at least a 19"
which I highly recommend if not 20.x") of the larger size,
you may find you don't need to maximize the window or fit to
fill the whole screen as you would with the 14: CRT.

I suggest you go to a store where they let you navigate
around on their systems on display. See what you find
usable.


>
>Also there is all the toolbars etc (google norton etc...) which reduce the
>vertical
>height of the screen anyway, making my standard monitor, widescreen in a
>way,
>on a true widescreen monitor doesn't this look kind of ridulous? The
>'useable'
>screen area must be 5.75 by 10.75 which is a ratio of 1.86:1
>on a WS monitor the situation will be even worse, I am thinking it is going
>to
>be close to 2.5:1 or even 3:1.



It depends on what size you buy. I would not recommend 19"
or lower widescreen for the reasons you suggested above, at
least not for a primary monitor. Once you go to a larger
LCD and higher native resolution, then the factors I'd
mentioned above begin to apply again.


>
>Can anyone with a WS monitor tell me the ratio of the free screen area, its
>a bit
>har d for me to work out. I am working on the basis you have 3 (tool)bars
>at the top and the start button bar at the bottom. There is also a
>'mini-bar'
>above both these bars, in a normal set up.


That depends on the size of your toolbars, taskbar, etc.
I think the primary question for someone buying "today" is
do they plan on watching a lot of commercially produced
video on it?

Forget I wrote that, I still suggest a 1600x1200 as the
first replacement for your CRT, except if you'll be gaming
and your video card can't push the pixels fast enough on
your games at 1600x1200. You may find FSAA even more usable
(desirable) on LCD because unlike CRT, LCD doesn't blur the
edges of pixels together. That's not necessarily bad, quite
the opposite but I think you will start to realize your tv
and games have image glitches you didn't notice because you
were watching on a small CRT.


>
>
>Another point is 'native resolution', or whatever, will this affect things?


Plan to always use the native resolution. It's not
absolutely horrible on non-native but once you get used to
the higher /native resolution, you'll probably prefer to
leave it there and will have new habits to do whatever
things you'll be doing.



>I am probably thinking a big standard shape monitor would be best?
>I incidently I have a Freecom DTTV stick so I sometime watch TV
>on my PC, but the monitor shape is not really a problem as you watch in
>a nicely framed box, you don't get black ugly bars wasteing space as you
>do on a proper TV.



Like anything else the budget would have to be considered.
If at least 20" is manageable, again I suggest 1600x1200 4:3
LCD except for the caveat above about gaming speed. If you
want to go significantly larger than 20.x", widescreen then
becomes more versatile for typical uses because of both the
higher res. and the higher physical space to view.

Then there's multiple monitors... depends on how you'll use
the system most, everything's a compromise.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Agamemnon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006

"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 19:07:52 +0100, "Agamemnon"
> <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kony" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:33:29 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2006-07-21, ThePunisher <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>> "Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Get a 19 inch or larger CRT that can display up to 1920x1440
>>>>>> resolution or over. Then you will be able to watch HD movies at
>>>>>> 1920x1080 and tile 4 wordprocessor or internet explorer windows on
>>>>>> the screen at the same time and have no problems with loss of usable
>>>>>> area. (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the
>>>>> same
>>>>> time would be?
>>>>
>>>>A quarter the size of said 19 inch or larger CRT. Have you any idea how
>>>>silly that question was?
>>>
>>>
>>> He was making a point, about how poor a choice it would be
>>> to get a larger CRT and have the 4 windows tiled, and he was
>>> quite right, it would be a very poor and clumsy way to work.
>>> "IF" someone actually needed 4 open windows the obvious
>>> choice is two widescreen LCDs.

>>
>>Rubbish. 16:9 will barley give you one reasonable sized window for word
>>and
>>certainly not two.

>
>
> You really think 4 tiled windows on a CRT will be
> "reasonably sized"?


It not a matter of think. Its know.

>
> I'd tried it your way, it's only the last resort if all you
> have to work with is the one monitor and for some odd reason
> you really need to see all 4 windows at once.


It's not a last resort. I could have 2 monitors connected to my graphics
card if I wanted. Tried it that way and it was pointless. Had to keep
turning my head. Everything tiled or floating on one screen is best.

>
> Generally speaking, it's rather silly on a windowing OS to
> do it, instead of just using a lower resolution and
> maximizing the app currently being used.


What the hell is the point of only having only one app running on screen on
a multitasking OS. I work with multiple apps open at the same time so I can
read text from one app while typing into another or search multiple folders
and web pages simultaneously or work on one app while I wait for another to
finish its task while monitoring it.

>
> Dual widescreen LCDs are by far far better than what you


No they are not. 16:9 is an utterly useless screen ratio for a computer
monitor. Its either too wide for word processing or two narrow for web
surfing with two browses open at the same time. All you get with a 16:9 and
worse still a 16:10 monitor is a restricted view of the document you are
looking at. On a 4:3 monitor you can display 2 full height documents in 2
instances of Word side by side at 1920x1440. On a 16:10 monitor you'd loose
the bottom half of the page using 1920x1200. That's 240 lines gone.

> suggest. It's not even close at all, you have no clue just
> how much better the LCD option is.


How much worse it is you mean. Since in order to see anything on an LCD
screen you have to be looking at it straight on it extremely difficult to
see and even image on two monitors that are angled in a V towards you. On
top of that there's is the problem of annoying dead pixels and I am not
paying 100's of pounds for a monitor that's defective which the
manufactures will not replace.

>
>
>>It has no advantage over 4:3 whatsoever as far as
>>computing is concerned.

>
> For two side-by-side windows open, widescreen is better.


No its not. For word processing a 4:3 screen at 1920x1440 will give you full
height whereas a widescreen monitor wont.

> For general computing with only one open, 4:3 or 5:4 can be
> better or not, depending on the task. Probably better
> overall, on average for typical work but we weren't talking
> about typical work, we were talking about this crazy idea
> you had to aim for using a CRT to tile 4 windows to a tiny
> blurred size to work with them.


It is not tiny and it is not blurred. It's a larger area per quadrant than
800x600 which people have been using for over a decade. Four windows open
with 4:3 is better than 1.5 open with 16:9/10 which is what you really get.
What's more a CRT is brighter than an LCD display and you can look at it
from any angle and get uniform brightness.

>
>>Its not wide enough to stand two applications side
>>by side and its two shallow to stack them on to of each other.

>
> Widescreen is wide enough. It's not "perfect", but vastly


Not 16:9. Panavision or Cinemascope is what you need, then I'd be able to
tile 6 or 8 windows on top of each other respectively.

> better than a 2 x 2 tile on a CRT, ESPECIALLY the PITA way
> you described it by manually overlapping portions of each
> window.


I told you already I don't need to overlap since 1920x1440 already surpassed
4 800x600 windows and with overlapping only the unused top and bottom bars
and scroll bars which you don't need to use if you have a scroll mouse you
will get the equivalent working area of 1024x764 if you want to use widows
larger than 960x720.

>
>>
>>At 1920x1440 I have the equivalent to two Cinemascope screens stacked on
>>top
>>of each other so no need to swivel on my chair or strain my neck to see
>>every application, and much less space is used on my desk.

>
>
> You have a poor solution and don't even realize how much
> better it could be to move to two high res widescreen LCDs.


I have the best solution. One large monitor capable of 2048x1536 verses 4
1024x768 LCD's which of course would require 2 graphics cards. In fact if I
were to get two monitors I'd get another CRT capable of 2048x1536 and plug
it into the other monitor output on my card and then I'd be able to have 8
windows tiled on my screens.


 
Reply With Quote
 
ThePunisher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
"Bazzer Smith" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:hx7wg.30993$(E-Mail Removed)
> "ThePunisher" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:9t5wg.16412$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > "Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)
> > >
> > > Get a 19 inch or larger CRT that can display up to 1920x1440
> > > resolution or over. Then you will be able to watch HD movies at
> > > 1920x1080 and tile 4 wordprocessor or internet explorer windows on
> > > the screen at the same time and have no problems with loss of
> > > usable area. (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big
> > > enough.)

> >
> > LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at
> > the same time would be?

>
> 960X720 bigger than the 800X600 I have been using for the last 10
> years.


Hmmm, 960X720 x4 on a 19" bigger than 800x600 on a 14", I don't think so,
more pixles doesn't mean bigger picture.

--
ThePunisher


 
Reply With Quote
 
ThePunisher
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
"Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)
>
> I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
>


Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.

--
ThePunisher


 
Reply With Quote
 
Roderick Stewart
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-22-2006
In article <pxbwg.50492$(E-Mail Removed)>, Bazzer Smith wrote:
> >> > Its not wide enough to stand two
> >> > applications side by side and its two shallow to stack them on to of
> >> > each other.
> >>
> >> You assume that all applications need a large window.
> >> I frequently have a "main" application open towards the LHS of my screen
> >> and
> >> a couple of smaller ones sat off to the RHS clearly visible.

> >
> > I have ALT and TAB keys on my keyboard and I know how to use them.

>
> Not easy to do when you are eating your dinner.


Neither is typing, or retouching pictures, or whatever you're doing with all
those open windows. If you have enough spare hands to use a program, you
should have enough to switch between them.

Rod.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Pyriform
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
ThePunisher wrote:
> "Agamemnon" wrote
>> I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
>>

>
> Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.


Well, I for one believe him. This is the man whose hearing goes up to 28
kHz, remember. I expect that he can also leap tall buildings in a single
bound.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Adrian A
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
Pyriform wrote:
> ThePunisher wrote:
>> "Agamemnon" wrote
>>> I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
>>>

>>
>> Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.

>
> Well, I for one believe him. This is the man whose hearing goes up to
> 28 kHz, remember. I expect that he can also leap tall buildings in a
> single bound.


He's not the Stig is he?
--
Adrian


 
Reply With Quote
 
kony
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      07-23-2006
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Agamemnon" <(E-Mail Removed)_SPAM> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>
>> I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
>>

>
>Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.



He might be able to in certain situations, like 1 light
pixel among a field of dark, but the light pixel won't look
the way it's supposed to, nor the adjacent dark ones.
They'll be blurred together.




 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are the standard network functions provided in standard C? disappearedng@gmail.com C Programming 5 06-10-2008 08:57 PM
Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS liukaiyuan DVD Video 0 05-04-2008 01:45 AM
add pexpect to the standard library, standard "install" mechanism. funkyj Python 5 01-20-2006 08:35 PM
How standard is the standard library? steve.leach Python 1 04-18-2005 04:07 PM
Widescreen shows on widescreen TV Limited Edition Clear Vinyl DVD Video 10 04-04-2004 10:03 AM



Advertisments