Standard or Widescreen monitor?

Discussion in 'Computer Information' started by Bazzer Smith, Jul 21, 2006.

  1. Owain wrote:
    >
    > Remember to get the same *height* you need to buy a bigger diagonal
    > screen size with widescreen compared to ordinary screen.


    Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)

    André Coutanche
     
    André Coutanche, Jul 21, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. Bazzer Smith

    RR2006 Guest

    "charles" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <LIUvg.11866$u%>,
    > Bazzer Smith <> wrote:
    >> I feel like turning my monitor through 90 degrees, can you do this with
    >> some monitors?

    >
    > Yes, my 20" Dell does this.


    Even my HP do this and automatically detect when you rotate the monitor to
    adjust the image. If I remember well, this feature is called "pivot".

    --
    Andrea
     
    RR2006, Jul 21, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. Bazzer Smith

    Owain Guest

    André Coutanche wrote:
    >>Remember to get the same *height* you need to buy a bigger diagonal
    >>screen size with widescreen compared to ordinary screen.

    > Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)


    The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws on the
    other two sides?

    Owain
     
    Owain, Jul 21, 2006
    #23
  4. Bazzer Smith

    Guest

    Bazzer Smith wrote:
    > 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.


    If you watch a reasonable amount of TV on it then i'd go for a
    widescreen. 17" is usable but doesn't have a huge amount of vertical
    space - for a desk a 19 or 20" widesceen is nice and will let you work
    two docs side by side (or a document and email say). You can move the
    windows bar to the side to maximise the amount of vertical workspace.

    It also depends on how much you're going to spend - w/s monitors tend
    to cost more and i'd go for a really good 4:3 over a 'budget' w/s

    Widescreens on laptops are a terrible idea as theres just not enough
    vertical height on a 15" screen (above that and they're not really
    portable). I think a 12" 4:3 screen for a laptop you regularly carry
    and a 15" for one you carry less often.
     
    , Jul 21, 2006
    #24
  5. In article <>,
    Owain <> wrote:
    > André Coutanche wrote:
    > >>Remember to get the same *height* you need to buy a bigger diagonal
    > >>screen size with widescreen compared to ordinary screen.

    > > Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)


    > The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws on the
    > other two sides?


    hides ;-)

    --
    John Cartmell john@ followed by finnybank.com 0845 006 8822
    Qercus magazine FAX +44 (0)8700-519-527 www.finnybank.com
    Qercus - the best guide to RISC OS computing
     
    John Cartmell, Jul 21, 2006
    #25
  6. In article <>, Agamemnon wrote:
    > 16:9 is a horrid ratio to watch TV on because the screen ratio feels
    > completely wrong. It's too wide for the golden ratio and its too narrow for
    > Panavision so films cropped to fit into it look odd.


    As far as I know, nobody makes any programme material, film or electronic,
    designed for "golden ratio".

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 21, 2006
    #26
  7. In article <>,
    wrote:
    > Why are so many laptops in Currys/Dixons/Comet etc widescreen? The
    > dork in Comet told me internet pages are designed for widescreen...
    >
    > Yes, films fit it better but for everything else it's just the loss of
    > height, which you need for web pages and documents.


    It allows them to specify the screen size with an impressively big
    number, even though the screen is actually slightly smaller in area than
    a conventionally shaped one would be on a similarly sized laptop.

    One possible advantage on a laptop is that a shorter screen is a little
    more mechanically stable so won't flap about so much.

    Rod.
     
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 21, 2006
    #27
  8. Bazzer Smith

    Slurp Guest

    "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    news:...

    >> (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)



    ???? the Dell 30" does 2560 x 1600

    http://tinyurl.com/hozec

    Slurp
     
    Slurp, Jul 21, 2006
    #28
  9. Bazzer Smith

    Hawkins Guest

    Pressing F11 on most browser set ups will remove the 2 to 3 toolbars at the
    top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press will
    bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to display
    vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the effect of F 11
    in this configuration.

    Richard.



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > Bazzer Smith wrote:
    >> 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.

    >
    > If you watch a reasonable amount of TV on it then i'd go for a
    > widescreen. 17" is usable but doesn't have a huge amount of vertical
    > space - for a desk a 19 or 20" widesceen is nice and will let you work
    > two docs side by side (or a document and email say). You can move the
    > windows bar to the side to maximise the amount of vertical workspace.
    >
    > It also depends on how much you're going to spend - w/s monitors tend
    > to cost more and i'd go for a really good 4:3 over a 'budget' w/s
    >
    > Widescreens on laptops are a terrible idea as theres just not enough
    > vertical height on a 15" screen (above that and they're not really
    > portable). I think a 12" 4:3 screen for a laptop you regularly carry
    > and a 15" for one you carry less often.
    >
     
    Hawkins, Jul 21, 2006
    #29
  10. Bazzer Smith

    Guest

    Hawkins wrote:
    > Pressing F11 on most browser set ups will remove the 2 to 3 toolbars at the
    > top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press will
    > bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to display
    > vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the effect of F 11
    > in this configuration.


    Indeed - f11 is the IE shortcut for fullscreen, presumably copied by
    Firefox and others for compatibility. Has various different functions
    in M$ desktop apps. Now a quick shortcut to hide all toolbars in Word,
    and then get them back again, would be useful but F11 isn't it.
     
    , Jul 21, 2006
    #30
  11. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "Slurp" <> wrote in message
    news:44c0c975$0$22126$...
    >
    > "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>> (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)

    >
    >
    > ???? the Dell 30" does 2560 x 1600


    It needs a dual link DVI graphics card so I can't use it on my present
    computer which would need a new motherboard as well as a new graphics card.

    >
    > http://tinyurl.com/hozec
    >


    Its only 16:10.

    If its not 16:9 I can't see any advantage for it over a 4:3 display at
    1920x1440.

    > Slurp
    >
    >
     
    Agamemnon, Jul 21, 2006
    #31
  12. Bazzer Smith

    ThePunisher Guest

    "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    news:
    >
    > 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?

    --
    ThePunisher
     
    ThePunisher, Jul 21, 2006
    #32
  13. Bazzer Smith

    David Taylor Guest

    On 2006-07-21, ThePunisher <> wrote:
    > "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    > news:
    >>
    >> 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?

    --
    David Taylor
     
    David Taylor, Jul 21, 2006
    #33
  14. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "ThePunisher" <> wrote in message
    news:9t5wg.16412$...
    > "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    > news:
    >>
    >> 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. If you overlap the top and
    bottom borders of each window and the side scroll bars then you'd be able to
    see the same work area you would see at 1024x768 in each quadrant and anyway
    there is not need to overlap. You can tile 4 instances of Word with A4
    documents selected at 100% and still be able to see the whole of the page
    within the standard margins. For most web pages 4 instances of Internet
    explorer tiled will display the whole width of the page since most pages are
    set to 800 pixels wide.

    If you want more you could always use 2048x1536 resolution by my monitor
    isn't really designed for that resolution although it can go up to it.
    Useful for editing lots of images side by side though or very large spread
    sheets where the fonts are not too small.

    >
    > --
    > ThePunisher
    >
     
    Agamemnon, Jul 21, 2006
    #34
  15. Bazzer Smith

    Guest Guest

    On 21 Jul,
    "housetrained" <> wrote:

    > Do yourself a favour. Buy a 19" flat LCD 4.3. You will wonder how you
    > managed with that old 17" for so long!
    >

    Most seem to be 5:4.


    --
    BD
    Change lycos to yahoo to reply
     
    Guest, Jul 21, 2006
    #35
  16. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "ThePunisher" <> wrote in message
    news:9t5wg.16412$...
    > "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    > news:
    >>
    >> 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.


    >
    > --
    > ThePunisher
    >
     
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 21, 2006
    #36
  17. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    Thanks thats useful. I think forgot how to do that somoe time go!!


    "Hawkins" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Pressing F11 on most browser set ups will remove the 2 to 3 toolbars at
    > the top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press
    > will bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to
    > display vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the
    > effect of F 11 in this configuration.
    >
    > Richard.
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>
    >> Bazzer Smith wrote:
    >>> 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.

    >>
    >> If you watch a reasonable amount of TV on it then i'd go for a
    >> widescreen. 17" is usable but doesn't have a huge amount of vertical
    >> space - for a desk a 19 or 20" widesceen is nice and will let you work
    >> two docs side by side (or a document and email say). You can move the
    >> windows bar to the side to maximise the amount of vertical workspace.
    >>
    >> It also depends on how much you're going to spend - w/s monitors tend
    >> to cost more and i'd go for a really good 4:3 over a 'budget' w/s
    >>
    >> Widescreens on laptops are a terrible idea as theres just not enough
    >> vertical height on a 15" screen (above that and they're not really
    >> portable). I think a 12" 4:3 screen for a laptop you regularly carry
    >> and a 15" for one you carry less often.
    >>

    >
    >
     
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 21, 2006
    #37
  18. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 14:33:29 +0000 (UTC), David Taylor
    <> wrote:

    >On 2006-07-21, ThePunisher <> wrote:
    >> "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    >> news:
    >>>
    >>> 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.
     
    kony, Jul 21, 2006
    #38
  19. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:30:44 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    <_SPAM> wrote:

    >
    >"ThePunisher" <> wrote in message
    >news:9t5wg.16412$...
    >> "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    >> news:
    >>>
    >>> 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.

    >If you overlap the top and
    >bottom borders of each window and the side scroll bars


    It is ridiculous to suggest working like that.

    >then you'd be able to
    >see the same work area you would see at 1024x768 in each quadrant and anyway
    >there is not need to overlap. You can tile 4 instances of Word with A4
    >documents selected at 100% and still be able to see the whole of the page ...


    No, you will be able to see a percentage of the outline of
    it, but not be able to discriminate at a per-pixel level
    anymore even with all pixels supposedly displayed. That is,
    unless your monitor has dual DVI, you sit extremely close to
    it, and it has outstanding quality. With all these factors
    in place, it's merely a very poor way to work with all that
    overlapping and manual adjustment every time a window is
    opened.


    >...within the standard margins. For most web pages 4 instances of Internet
    >explorer tiled will display the whole width of the page since most pages are
    >set to 800 pixels wide.


    You don't seem to grasp what is obvious to most people. The
    goal is not merely to have every pixel on screen, it's to
    have them large enough and accurately enough reproduced to
    be discernable, individually. If you're not going to to
    that, there wasn't any point to it in the first place, you
    could merely choose smaller window elements and font sizes.


    >
    >If you want more you could always use 2048x1536 resolution by my monitor
    >isn't really designed for that resolution although it can go up to it.
    >Useful for editing lots of images side by side though or very large spread
    >sheets where the fonts are not too small.



    Why are you suggesting such a horrible way to work? It is
    far worse than any other alternative, especially for image
    editing because the CRT at high res has terrible contrast
    and suffers from bleeding.
     
    kony, Jul 21, 2006
    #39
  20. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 21 Jul 2006 16:30:44 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    > <_SPAM> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"ThePunisher" <> wrote in message
    >>news:9t5wg.16412$...
    >>> "Agamemnon" <_SPAM> wrote in message
    >>> news:
    >>>>
    >>>> 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

    >
    >>If you overlap the top and
    >>bottom borders of each window and the side scroll bars

    >
    > It is ridiculous to suggest working like that.


    I can tile 4 applications such as Word or IE on the screen without need for
    overlap since they only require 800x600 resolution to display all that is
    required.

    >
    >>then you'd be able to
    >>see the same work area you would see at 1024x768 in each quadrant and
    >>anyway
    >>there is not need to overlap. You can tile 4 instances of Word with A4
    >>documents selected at 100% and still be able to see the whole of the page
    >>...

    >
    > No, you will be able to see a percentage of the outline of
    > it, but not be able to discriminate at a per-pixel level
    > anymore even with all pixels supposedly displayed. That is,
    > unless your monitor has dual DVI, you sit extremely close to
    > it, and it has outstanding quality. With all these factors
    > in place, it's merely a very poor way to work with all that
    > overlapping and manual adjustment every time a window is
    > opened.


    I am using a CRT therefore I don't need dual DVI.

    >
    >
    >>...within the standard margins. For most web pages 4 instances of Internet
    >>explorer tiled will display the whole width of the page since most pages
    >>are
    >>set to 800 pixels wide.

    >
    > You don't seem to grasp what is obvious to most people. The


    No, you don't.

    > goal is not merely to have every pixel on screen, it's to
    > have them large enough and accurately enough reproduced to
    > be discernable, individually. If you're not going to to
    > that, there wasn't any point to it in the first place, you
    > could merely choose smaller window elements and font sizes.
    >


    I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.

    >
    >>
    >>If you want more you could always use 2048x1536 resolution by my monitor
    >>isn't really designed for that resolution although it can go up to it.
    >>Useful for editing lots of images side by side though or very large spread
    >>sheets where the fonts are not too small.

    >
    >
    > Why are you suggesting such a horrible way to work? It is


    No, its a very nice way to work. I have the equivalent of 4 screens on one
    19 inch monitor and I don't have to keep maximizing and minimizing in order
    to switch applications. Right now I have Outlook Express on the top right,
    IE on the top left, live TV on the bottom left and space to write this
    message on the bottom right without overlapping or needing to minimize any
    of my other applications.


    > far worse than any other alternative, especially for image
    > editing because the CRT at high res has terrible contrast
    > and suffers from bleeding.


    My CRT has none of these problems. It has gamma correction as does my
    graphics card and does not bleed.
     
    Agamemnon, Jul 21, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. moyo

    widescreen tv vs. computer monitor

    moyo, Sep 16, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    769
  2. sharonf

    Widescreen Monitor Question

    sharonf, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,558
    =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?=
    Sep 4, 2005
  3. Limited Edition Clear Vinyl

    Widescreen shows on widescreen TV

    Limited Edition Clear Vinyl, Apr 1, 2004, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    923
    Ronald Cole
    Apr 4, 2004
  4. Adam Grinter

    Setting up a widescreen monitor

    Adam Grinter, Jul 26, 2006, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    635
    Plato
    Jul 27, 2006
  5. liukaiyuan

    Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS

    liukaiyuan, May 4, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    634
    liukaiyuan
    May 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page