blackhead said:
Widescreen monitors seems to becoming more
popular as time goes by.
The key things that are happening as time goes by are that:
1. w/s monitors are getting cheaper, and
2. size and res enhancements are going into wides.
However, most new graphics cards are dual-port, and you
can today put more total pixels per dollar on your desktop
by going dual-head 4:3 rather than single wide.
This will change as w/s becomes mainstream, and the pix/dollar
of wide falls to or below the pix/dollar of 4:3.
Another factor is that 4:3 monitors don't seem to be getting
any larger than about 22in 1600x1200 res. If you want more
than 1200 pix vertical, you have to go with a wide (30in).
So is there a disadvantage to using a widescreen rather
than a normal screen monitor?
It depends on the application mix and the user's preferences
and usage patterns. I run 23 wide at home and dual 4:3 at work,
all ~1200 pix high.
To specifically address the subject line here:
Where I work, each user elects single 24wide or dual19 std.
I spent my dollars on wide at home. I spent the company's
on dual std at work, just to try it out.
The main disadvantage i can think of is that most documents
are of A4 size and so business monitors need to be extended
in height compared to width.
Most of the time dual-head is fine. I'd prefer single-wide when
working with really big spreadsheets, but that's only a small
part of what I do. If the company had offered single 30in wide
vs dual 19, I'd have taken single wide
If you can run a dual-head setup in portrait mode, dual 4:3
rotated has some appeal for document-intensive use ...
(if, and this is a big if, the LCD panels physically rotate,
AND don't have severe lateral off-axis viewing angle problems
when rotated).
I expect to try dual-portrait sometime this year (it's a
Solaris shop, and the current windowing environment we use
presently can't do it.)
Rotating a wide monitor is also possible, but the physical
dimensions can get impractical.
