Standard or Widescreen monitor?

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

  1. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > 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.
    Agamemnon, Jul 24, 2006
    #61
    1. Advertising

  2. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

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

    >
    >"kony" <> wrote in message
    >news:p...
    >> 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, Jul 24, 2006
    #62
    1. Advertising

  3. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    > <_SPAM> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"kony" <> wrote in message
    >>news:p...
    >>> 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.
    Agamemnon, Jul 24, 2006
    #63
  4. Bazzer Smith

    Cyde Weys Guest

    <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.
    Cyde Weys, Jul 24, 2006
    #64
  5. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

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

    >
    >"kony" <> wrote in message
    >news:eek:...
    >> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    >> <_SPAM> wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"kony" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:p...
    >>>> 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.
    kony, Jul 24, 2006
    #65
  6. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "Cyde Weys" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > <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, Jul 24, 2006
    #66
  7. Bazzer Smith

    Rod Speed Guest

    Bazzer Smith <> wrote:
    > "Cyde Weys" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> <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.
    Rod Speed, Jul 24, 2006
    #67
  8. Bazzer Smith

    Pyriform Guest

    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?
    Pyriform, Jul 25, 2006
    #68
  9. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "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/st...ll=true#(any):100:350:PageNo_1: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...4&f2=8&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f=2&t=4&ms=&k=&s=0&gt=
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 25, 2006
    #69
  10. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    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/st...ll=true#(any):100:350:PageNo_1: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...4&f2=8&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f=2&t=4&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/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020 1109909238
    kony, Jul 25, 2006
    #70
  11. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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/st...ll=true#(any):100:350:PageNo_1: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...4&f2=8&f3=&f4=&f5=&f6=&f=2&t=4&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/ProductList.asp?Submit=ENE&N=2000190020 1109909238


    I can see I will have serious probs getting one at a reasonable price in the
    UK!!
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 25, 2006
    #71
  12. In article <>, Kony wrote:
    > >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.


    Not really. They cost an arm and a leg so PC World probably wouldn't sell many
    from the shop, so not worth the shelf space. They may be common in business
    environments, but when you can buy a complete packaged system including a
    printer for less than a 20" display, that's what most home users will go for.

    I'm using an Iiyama Prolite E511S, which is a superb 1600x1200 non widescreen
    display, but I got it from a wholesaler after an internet search. You probably
    won't see anything of this size in ordinary high street shops, except in the
    Apple Mac showrooms, but then everybody accepts that their stuff is expensive.

    Rod.
    Roderick Stewart, Jul 25, 2006
    #72
  13. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    "kony" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 16:33:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    > <_SPAM> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"kony" <> wrote in message
    >>news:eek:...
    >>> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 04:23:35 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    >>> <_SPAM> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>
    >>>>"kony" <> wrote in message
    >>>>news:p...
    >>>>> 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.
    >


    Not true.

    Since you obviously have never used a high quality CRT there is no point in
    taking this discussion any further.

    >
    >
    >>
    >>>
    >>> 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.


    POPPYCOCK.
    Agamemnon, Jul 25, 2006
    #73
  14. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 14:49:57 +0100, "Agamemnon"
    <_SPAM> wrote:


    >Not true.
    >
    >Since you obviously have never used a high quality CRT there is no point in
    >taking this discussion any further.
    >
    >>



    On the contrary, I've bought well-rated Trinitrons for years
    which have far above average contrast.

    I've also seen a shedload of monitors in my day, and they
    all have this issue that you deny. Perhaps if you ever open
    your mind a bit and buy a pair of widescreen LCD for a
    side-by-side comparison, then finally you will see what I
    mean.
    kony, Jul 25, 2006
    #74
  15. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:01:10 +0100, Roderick Stewart
    <> wrote:

    >In article <>, Kony wrote:
    >> >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.

    >
    >Not really.


    Yes, really.
    Only recently were widescreen 20" becoming more common.


    >They cost an arm and a leg



    Maybe in the UK, but I have no idea where you've looked
    either.
    kony, Jul 25, 2006
    #75
  16. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    "Pyriform" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > 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?


    Have you considered a career as a comedy script writer?

    >
    >
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 27, 2006
    #76
    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:
    760
  2. sharonf

    Widescreen Monitor Question

    sharonf, Sep 4, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,545
    =?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:
    902
    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:
    625
    Plato
    Jul 27, 2006
  5. liukaiyuan

    Widescreen: Widescreen TVs at SEARS

    liukaiyuan, May 4, 2008, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    607
    liukaiyuan
    May 4, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page