«

"kony" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
> <> wrote:
>
>>"Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
>>news:
>>>
>>> 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.

A full stop is one pixel wide by one pixel high and I can see all of them on
my screen anywhere they might be placed. You can't say that about most LCD
screens which are sold with defective pixels.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"kony" <> wrote in message
>news.. .
>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>"Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>news:
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>
>A full stop is one pixel wide by one pixel high and I can see all of them

You can see a blurry part of one, and the blurred adjacent
pixels.

>on
>my screen anywhere they might be placed. You can't say that about most LCD
>screens which are sold with defective pixels.

But, you can say it on every LCD without defective pixels.

You are conveniently ignoring that CRTs are not "perfect"
either, they have their own gun-focus problems on flatter
screens or glare on non-flat.

So you're pro-CRT, ok... it's still a poor way to tile 4
windows for use. Most people would laugh if they saw you
trying to use it alongside someone use using 2 wide-screen
LCDs for the same tasks.

"kony" <> wrote in message
news...
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
> <_SPAM> wrote:
>
>>
>>"kony" <> wrote in message
>>news. ..
>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
>>> <> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>>news:
>>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>
>>A full stop is one pixel wide by one pixel high and I can see all of them
>
> You can see a blurry part of one, and the blurred adjacent
> pixels.

The are not blurred on my monitor.

>
>>on
>>my screen anywhere they might be placed. You can't say that about most LCD
>>screens which are sold with defective pixels.
>
> But, you can say it on every LCD without defective pixels.
>
> You are conveniently ignoring that CRTs are not "perfect"
> either, they have their own gun-focus problems on flatter
> screens or glare on non-flat.

Not on my monitor.

>
> So you're pro-CRT, ok... it's still a poor way to tile 4
> windows for use. Most people would laugh if they saw you
> trying to use it alongside someone use using 2 wide-screen
> LCDs for the same tasks.

But I'd have twice as many windows open and on screen at the same time than
they did, and at a higher resolution per window, so I'd be the last one
laughing.

<snip question on whether to get a standard or widescreen monitor>

I can't really say what would be best for you, but I do know what if I
were in the market for a flat-screen monitor right now I'd go for a
widescreen. Here's why ...

My computer is basically my multimedia center. I do have a TV, but I
only use that to watch live TV on. I download and watch lots of
episodes that I missed on live TV (more and more of which are being
broadcast in widescreen these days). Ditto for anime and movies; all
new anime is pretty much widescreen and movies are exclusively
widescreen (unless you buy the crappy pan-and-scan DVDs, but I don't).
I watch all of this stuff on my computer because my computer has really
nice 5.1 speakers and a nice sound card; my TV is just a normal TV.

Also, I do believe all games coming out these days can function just
fine in widescreen without having to do letterboxing. So when I look
at the sum total of everything I do with my computer I see some stuff
that would benefit from the widescreen and some other stuff that just
plain won't be affected very much. It's the right choice for me.

Of course, I already have a 20.1" standard flatscreen, and I can't
really justify an investment to spend another $350 to replace it with a
20" widescreen flatscreen; that's not worth it. But when I finally do
need another monitor I will be getting widescreen.

On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:33:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
<_SPAM> wrote:

>
>"kony" <> wrote in message
>news.. .
>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
>> <_SPAM> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"kony" <> wrote in message
>>>news ...
>>>> On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 03:17:16 GMT, "ThePunisher"
>>>> <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
>>>>>news:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>>
>>>A full stop is one pixel wide by one pixel high and I can see all of them
>>
>> You can see a blurry part of one, and the blurred adjacent
>> pixels.
>
>The are not blurred on my monitor.
>

It would be more accurate to claim your eyesight is too shot
to notice. This is inherant in CRT technology itself, there
is NO CRT that doesn't do it.



>> You are conveniently ignoring that CRTs are not "perfect"
>> either, they have their own gun-focus problems on flatter
>> screens or glare on non-flat.
>
>Not on my monitor.

Yes, on all of them, every last CRT on earth.
Some do pretty good, you may not notice it much at all, but
this is because it's a gradual deformation away from the
center.



>
>>
>> So you're pro-CRT, ok... it's still a poor way to tile 4
>> windows for use. Most people would laugh if they saw you
>> trying to use it alongside someone use using 2 wide-screen
>> LCDs for the same tasks.
>
>But I'd have twice as many windows open and on screen at the same time than
>they did, and at a higher resolution per window, so I'd be the last one
>laughing.


You couldn't even use 4 as well as they do.

"Cyde Weys" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
> <snip question on whether to get a standard or widescreen monitor>
>
> I can't really say what would be best for you, but I do know what if I
> were in the market for a flat-screen monitor right now I'd go for a
> widescreen. Here's why ...
>
> My computer is basically my multimedia center. I do have a TV, but I
> only use that to watch live TV on. I download and watch lots of
> episodes that I missed on live TV (more and more of which are being
> broadcast in widescreen these days). Ditto for anime and movies; all
> new anime is pretty much widescreen and movies are exclusively
> widescreen (unless you buy the crappy pan-and-scan DVDs, but I don't).
> I watch all of this stuff on my computer because my computer has really
> nice 5.1 speakers and a nice sound card; my TV is just a normal TV.
>
> Also, I do believe all games coming out these days can function just
> fine in widescreen without having to do letterboxing. So when I look
> at the sum total of everything I do with my computer I see some stuff
> that would benefit from the widescreen and some other stuff that just
> plain won't be affected very much. It's the right choice for me.
>
> Of course, I already have a 20.1" standard flatscreen, and I can't
> really justify an investment to spend another $350 to replace it with a
> 20" widescreen flatscreen; that's not worth it. But when I finally do
> need another monitor I will be getting widescreen.

Some good points, but as far as watchng video on a computer I am
nearly always watching in a box of some sort so the actual screen shape
doesn't matter.

I think if I get a new TV it will be WS beause the majority
of programming is probably WS now (unfortunately) Sky Sports
news is still 4:3 though.
As far as films are concerned most films are wider than 16:9 so it aint
gonna fit the screen anyway!
I think I will probably find a big 4:3 with lots of pixels, but I would like
to try a 16:9 to see what they are like to work on.



>

Bazzer Smith <> wrote:
> "Cyde Weys" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>> <snip question on whether to get a standard or widescreen monitor>
>>
>> I can't really say what would be best for you, but I do know what if
>> I were in the market for a flat-screen monitor right now I'd go for a
>> widescreen. Here's why ...
>>
>> My computer is basically my multimedia center. I do have a TV, but I
>> only use that to watch live TV on. I download and watch lots of
>> episodes that I missed on live TV (more and more of which are being
>> broadcast in widescreen these days). Ditto for anime and movies; all
>> new anime is pretty much widescreen and movies are exclusively
>> widescreen (unless you buy the crappy pan-and-scan DVDs, but I
>> don't). I watch all of this stuff on my computer because my computer
>> has really nice 5.1 speakers and a nice sound card; my TV is just a
>> normal TV. Also, I do believe all games coming out these days can function just
>> fine in widescreen without having to do letterboxing. So when I look
>> at the sum total of everything I do with my computer I see some stuff
>> that would benefit from the widescreen and some other stuff that just
>> plain won't be affected very much. It's the right choice for me.
>>
>> Of course, I already have a 20.1" standard flatscreen, and I can't
>> really justify an investment to spend another $350 to replace it
>> with a 20" widescreen flatscreen; that's not worth it. But when I
>> finally do need another monitor I will be getting widescreen.
>
> Some good points, but as far as watchng video on a computer I am
> nearly always watching in a box of some sort so the actual screen
> shape doesn't matter.
>
> I think if I get a new TV it will be WS beause the majority
> of programming is probably WS now (unfortunately) Sky Sports
> news is still 4:3 though.
> As far as films are concerned most films are wider than 16:9 so it
> aint gonna fit the screen anyway!

The reality is that it fits fine with properly designed widescreen TVs.

> I think I will probably find a big 4:3 with lots of pixels, but I
> would like to try a 16:9 to see what they are like to work on.

Bazzer Smith wrote:
> Some good points, but as far as watchng video on a computer I am
> nearly always watching in a box of some sort so the actual screen
> shape doesn't matter.

Are you some kind of up-market homeless person?

"kony" <> wrote in message
news:...
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 23:54:19 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
> <> 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.

Hard to say really, I have a vaiety of uses, WS might be useful for
displaying two poker tables for example, but I am not sure about this,
the software might shape the table to suit your monitor shape
(ie give a wide table on WS, but I am not sure, probably not I guess).
>
>
>>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 don't really game and I wouldn't think many games are suited
to widescreen, its a pretty restrictive one dimensional format.
Incidently I was playing a bit of the pinball game included with XP
and it is fairly clear it is not suited to WS indeed it would have
helped if my 4:3 monitor was much taller obviously because
of the shape of a pinball table.
>
>
>
>>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.

I guess I that would be a nice place for the speakers mine
are currently on the floor and a bit of a nuiscance there.
>
> 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).

Can't say I have realy ever noticed the flicker.

>
>
>>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.

Mine is 1024 X 758 max, actually I have just realised something which
has made my mind up. When I play poker the standard table is 800X600
so it fills the screen in my usual resolution of 800X660. when I switch to
my highest
resolution I can see one table fully and about 1/3 of the other which makes
it
easier but still very awkward to play too tables.
Now with 1600X1200 I should be able to see *four* tables very nicely, one
in each corner which will be great!! Indeed I will be able to do the same
for
any for standard 800X600 screens.
So that settles it I must go out and get one ASAP!!
Just have to decide which model now!!
I guess the best way is to get down to the stores and see which one I think
looks the best?


>
>>
>>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.
>

Yep.

>
>>
>>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.

I was thiking 17" at first but I guess I may go for 19" or more
if the price is not extortionate!! Otherwise I might find the test hard to
read.


>
>
>>
>>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.

True but I think I have made my mind up now on a LCD 1600X1200

It will probably be one of these lot or similar, no need for a TV tuner
I think cos I get digital TV

http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/sto...SortOrder_DOWN


However after having looked the problem is the max resolution is 1280 x 1024
not 1600X1200 so that is a fairly big compromise not that much better
than 1024X768 but I guess so I am kind of back to square one!!

Where can I get one from?

This one might do it but at £900 its well into the 'extortionate price'
region!!

http://www.digiuk.com/productdetail....ms=&k=&s=0&gt=

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 00:08:56 GMT, "Bazzer Smith"
<> wrote:

<snip>

>True but I think I have made my mind up now on a LCD 1600X1200
>
>It will probably be one of these lot or similar, no need for a TV tuner
>I think cos I get digital TV
>
>http://www.pcworld.co.uk/martprd/sto...SortOrder_DOWN
>
>
>However after having looked the problem is the max resolution is 1280 x 1024
>not 1600X1200 so that is a fairly big compromise not that much better
>than 1024X768 but I guess so I am kind of back to square one!!

1600x1200 is typically on 20"+, non-widescreen models. They
are fairly common, it is a bit odd that PCWorld doesn't list
any.


>
>Where can I get one from?

I'm across the pond, don't know where. Just seek 20"
non-widescreen, that's a start.


>
>This one might do it but at £900 its well into the 'extortionate price'
>region!!
>
>http://www.digiuk.com/productdetail....ms=&k=&s=0&gt=
>
>

If you want some makes and models to search for, use the
info you can drill-down at Newegg,
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...020+1109909238