Standard or Widescreen monitor?

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

  1. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    Rubbish. 16:9 will barley give you one reasonable sized window for word and
    certainly not two. It has no advantage over 4:3 whatsoever as far as
    computing is concerned. Its not wide enough to stand two applications side
    by side and its two shallow to stack them on to of each other.

    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.
    Agamemnon, Jul 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bazzer Smith

    Mike Henry Guest

    You could use 1280 x 1024 on those, which is a rare 5:4 aspect ratio
    mode (assuming square pixels). But that is pretty much the only
    resolution that will look right.
    Mike Henry, Jul 21, 2006
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bazzer Smith

    Dr Zoidberg Guest

    So thats equivalent to using 4 little 10" screens at 960*720

    A horrible suggestion

    1680 * 1050 as I have on my laptop and desktop is a nice resolution to show
    two pages side by side in Word , and gives you much more screen area for
    Excel where the shape of the window is not so critical.
    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.
    Dr Zoidberg, Jul 21, 2006
  4. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    I suppose you don't read books then.

    960*720 at 10 inches is better than 800x600 at 20 inches. Its the definition
    that matters.
    All you need for two pages side by side is 4:3. 16:10 leaves lots of wasted
    Well I can have 4 small applications running in the bottom left hand corner
    and 3 full sized windows in the other quadrants or 4 full sized windows over
    all. What's more I can have two long columns of icons on visible on the far
    left of my desktop while all of this is going on so I can run most
    applications directly without needing to move windows or use the start menu.
    Then ontop of that I've go Nvidia nView which lets me crate as many separate
    desktops as I won't on just one monitor.
    Agamemnon, Jul 21, 2006
  5. Openoffice has CTRL-SHIFT-J with either the same keys or ESC to return.

    Word 2000 only seems to have a mouse option, and I don't know if current versions
    have anything neater because I haven't used it for years. It's ridiculously
    expensive when there is a very comprehensive alternative which is free.

    Roderick Stewart, Jul 21, 2006
  6. I have ALT and TAB keys on my keyboard and I know how to use them.

    Roderick Stewart, Jul 21, 2006
  7. Bazzer Smith

    Hawkins Guest

    Yes it is great especially when looking at detailed "piccies" on the web

    But that aside what you all are forgetting is that The Troll going under the
    name of Agamemnon has eyesight with acuity that probably exceeds that of his
    hearing prowess. As he has these exceptional powers he presumably has
    certified documentary evidence that could be published, indeed they may
    already be featured in some medical journals seeing that they are so

    If not the men in white coats will soon catch up with him.


    Hawkins, Jul 21, 2006
  8. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    So thats equivalent to using 4 little 10" screens at 960*720
    No its not, not when you consider the alternatives, all of which
    will be much worse. Unless you use for monitors stacked in a square.
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 21, 2006
  9. Bazzer Smith

    Bazzer Smith Guest

    Not easy to do when you are eating your dinner.
    Bazzer Smith, Jul 21, 2006
  10. Bazzer Smith

    Owain Guest

    No, I'm fairly sure it was sides (of a see-saw), although it's a long
    time since I read Jennings.

    However, if I'm wrong I'm sure I'll get a "Doh! Stupid boy!"

    Owain, Jul 22, 2006
  11. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    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.

    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.
    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

    You have a poor solution and don't even realize how much
    better it could be to move to two high res widescreen LCDs.
    kony, Jul 22, 2006
  12. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    Yes and that's EVEN WORSE.

    The higher you put your CRT, the poorer it will be!
    kony, Jul 22, 2006
  13. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    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.

    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).

    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).

    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

    Yes, and non.
    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.
    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.
    kony, Jul 22, 2006
  14. Bazzer Smith

    Agamemnon Guest

    It not a matter of think. Its know.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    No its not. For word processing a 4:3 screen at 1920x1440 will give you full
    height whereas a widescreen monitor wont.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Agamemnon, Jul 22, 2006
  15. Bazzer Smith

    ThePunisher Guest

    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, Jul 22, 2006
  16. Bazzer Smith

    ThePunisher Guest

    Baaaahahhahhaha, of course you can Kal-El.
    ThePunisher, Jul 22, 2006
  17. 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.

    Roderick Stewart, Jul 22, 2006
  18. Bazzer Smith

    Pyriform Guest

    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
    Pyriform, Jul 23, 2006
  19. Bazzer Smith

    Adrian A Guest

    He's not the Stig is he? ;-)
    Adrian A, Jul 23, 2006
  20. Bazzer Smith

    kony Guest

    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.
    kony, Jul 24, 2006
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.