Standard or Widescreen monitor?

[Agamemnon]

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.

 

[kony]

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.

 

[Agamemnon]

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

The are not blurred on my monitor.

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.

 

[Cyde Weys]

<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.

 

[kony]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

<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.

 

[Rod Speed]

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.

 

[Pyriform]

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?

 

[Bazzer Smith]

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).

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.

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.

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.



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.

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?

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.



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.

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.

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=

 

[kony]

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

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

 

[Bazzer Smith]

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



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



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



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!!

 

[Roderick Stewart]

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.

 

[Agamemnon]

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.




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.

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

POPPYCOCK.

 

[kony]

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]

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.

 

[Bazzer Smith]

Are you some kind of up-market homeless person?

Have you considered a career as a comedy script writer?