Why this mania for widescreen monitors?

[Walter R.]

I am using Win XP sp3 with a 19" 4:3 aspect ratio flatscreen monitor.

They do not seem to make 4:3 monitors any more, only widescreen monitors. I
was wondering what I was missing and bought a 22" widescreen which has about
the name number of usable square inches as a 19" 4:3 monitor.

What I found was that most websites, by far, do not fill the wide screen, no
matter what resolution you set the computer for. There is usually an empty
strip on both sides, ranging from 2 to 4 inches. If I use the "native
resolution" of 1680x1050 (1.6 ratio) the text gets intolerably small.

If I use another 1.6 ratio, like 1280x800, everything gets better, I can
even read the text, but there is still a lot of wasted space because most
web sites were built for 4:3 monitors. There are only a very few websites ,
like Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo, that actually provide a visual benefit (a
full width display).

When I watched Das Boot, the actual screen display was 39cm on the
widescreen and 36cm on the 4:3. Only a small advantage.

When I use MS Word, I get quite a few more lines on my 19" screen than on
the 22" widescreen, even using 1280x800 resolution. I also have to reduce
the line-width by 10% to make the text come out to normal page width.

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I can
only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

 

[Mike Hall - MVP]

I am using Win XP sp3 with a 19" 4:3 aspect ratio flatscreen monitor.

They do not seem to make 4:3 monitors any more, only widescreen monitors.
I was wondering what I was missing and bought a 22" widescreen which has
about the name number of usable square inches as a 19" 4:3 monitor.

What I found was that most websites, by far, do not fill the wide screen,
no matter what resolution you set the computer for. There is usually an
empty strip on both sides, ranging from 2 to 4 inches. If I use the
"native resolution" of 1680x1050 (1.6 ratio) the text gets intolerably
small.

If I use another 1.6 ratio, like 1280x800, everything gets better, I can
even read the text, but there is still a lot of wasted space because most
web sites were built for 4:3 monitors. There are only a very few websites
, like Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo, that actually provide a visual benefit
(a full width display).

When I watched Das Boot, the actual screen display was 39cm on the
widescreen and 36cm on the 4:3. Only a small advantage.

When I use MS Word, I get quite a few more lines on my 19" screen than on
the 22" widescreen, even using 1280x800 resolution. I also have to reduce
the line-width by 10% to make the text come out to normal page width.

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I can
only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

The widescreen will accommodate movie playing better and gives more space to
put more windows.

Instead of running everything full screen, resize the windows and take
advantages of the fact that you can still see part of your desktop and/or
other active windows..

 

[JS]

I have noticed as you said that a number of websites
do not take advantage of the widescreens, including
my own website much to my disappointment. But some
sites do adjust properly when displayed on a widescreen.
This is something I need to take up with my hosting provider.

As to some of you other questions.
More desktop real-estate when using multiple windows/apps
which I like. I choose a resolution that was comfortable for me
which is not the default.

As for MS Word the "Line Width" is predetermined by the
'Page Setup' options.

 

[Don Phillipson]

The widescreen will accommodate movie playing better and gives more space to
put more windows.

This point states but underemphasizes the way the PC
hardware industry interacts with two quite different markets,
business employers (who buy hardware for N hundred
employees) and buyers of computer games (who buy
hardware and software as individuals.) One reason
quality graphics and large hard drives are so cheap is
that business now buys them (and constitutes the bulk
of the market.) Bill Gates announced before 2000 he
wanted Windows PCs to become "Media Machines."
Letterbox format (as used in modern movie theatres)
makes this explicit -- and will tempt business employees
to watch TV on the web instead of doing productive work.

 

[Chuck]

The LCD's for wide screen TV's are in high volume probuction, thus bringing
the component price down for the display Mfr.

 

[roman modic]

Hello!

When I watched Das Boot, the actual screen display was 39cm on the widescreen and 36cm on the 4:3. Only a small advantage. ....

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I can only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

BTW, here comes 32:10 monitor:
http://gizmodo.com/5277667/stunning-nec-crv43-43+inch-curved-monitor-is-stunningly-expensive

It will be great for movies like HTWWW ...
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/movies.php?id=742&show=review
"features a version optimized for 2.89:1 aspect ratio"

Cheers, Roman

 

[Michael W. Ryder]

I am using Win XP sp3 with a 19" 4:3 aspect ratio flatscreen monitor.

They do not seem to make 4:3 monitors any more, only widescreen monitors. I
was wondering what I was missing and bought a 22" widescreen which has about
the name number of usable square inches as a 19" 4:3 monitor.

What I found was that most websites, by far, do not fill the wide screen, no
matter what resolution you set the computer for. There is usually an empty
strip on both sides, ranging from 2 to 4 inches. If I use the "native
resolution" of 1680x1050 (1.6 ratio) the text gets intolerably small.

If I use another 1.6 ratio, like 1280x800, everything gets better, I can
even read the text, but there is still a lot of wasted space because most
web sites were built for 4:3 monitors. There are only a very few websites ,
like Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo, that actually provide a visual benefit (a
full width display).

When I watched Das Boot, the actual screen display was 39cm on the
widescreen and 36cm on the 4:3. Only a small advantage.

When I use MS Word, I get quite a few more lines on my 19" screen than on
the 22" widescreen, even using 1280x800 resolution. I also have to reduce
the line-width by 10% to make the text come out to normal page width.

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I can
only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

There are two advantages for business users. The first is that more of
a spreadsheet can be displayed at a time, and the other is that one can
have a window open with information you need while working in another
window and don't have to keep switching windows while you work.

 

[Keith Wilby]

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I can
only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

I have a widescreen field of vision, therefore I have a widescreen telly and
monitor at home. At work my monitor is 4:3 but 4:3 has *always* seemed
unnatural to me.

Keith.
www.keithwilby.co.uk

 

[shawn]

I could really use a widescreen at work. I have hardly any desktop room here
to do graphic editing. It really drives me crazy. Just to have GiMP open
along with a graphic I have to keep moving things around to get to my tools,
then see the whole graphic, etc.

I have 22" at home and love it, but what I really want is 24" or above.

 

[TD]

I am using Win XP sp3 with a 19" 4:3 aspect ratio flatscreen monitor.

They do not seem to make 4:3 monitors any more, only widescreen
monitors. I was wondering what I was missing and bought a 22"
widescreen which has about the name number of usable square inches as
a 19" 4:3 monitor.

What I found was that most websites, by far, do not fill the wide
screen, no matter what resolution you set the computer for. There is
usually an empty strip on both sides, ranging from 2 to 4 inches. If I
use the "native resolution" of 1680x1050 (1.6 ratio) the text gets
intolerably small.

If I use another 1.6 ratio, like 1280x800, everything gets better, I
can even read the text, but there is still a lot of wasted space
because most web sites were built for 4:3 monitors. There are only a
very few websites , like Google, Wikipedia and Yahoo, that actually
provide a visual benefit (a full width display).

When I watched Das Boot, the actual screen display was 39cm on the
widescreen and 36cm on the 4:3. Only a small advantage.

When I use MS Word, I get quite a few more lines on my 19" screen
than on the 22" widescreen, even using 1280x800 resolution. I also
have to reduce the line-width by 10% to make the text come out to
normal page width.

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I
can only see disadvantages. Takes up more desk space, too.

I still use my 15 inch square. WS is too big for close up work, IMHO.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

<snipped>

<it was old, not quoted completely, so...>
http://groups.google.com/group/micr...p.hardware/browse_frm/thread/222b89bbdfe94ce/
</end quote of entire conversation>

I still use my 15 inch square. WS is too big for close up work,
IMHO.

And everything can be explained with the last acronym in that response...

"IMHO" <- in my humble opinion.

OPINION.

That's what it is about widescreen monitors, that is the 'mania'. I like
them, fills my range of vision happily and fully. My dual 24" widescreen
setup and my single 30" widescreen setup work great *for me*. Might not for
someone else - or they might not see the point in such large monitors, such
flat monitors, such bright monitors, such wide-format monitors. So be it.

 

[Leythos]

So, why on earth, is everybody switching to widescreen monitors ?? I
I moved from 2 x 21" Glass Monitors to 2 x 24" LCD wide-screen panels.
I have MUCH MORE DESK SPACE NOW and I now sit about 30" from the screens.

I find that the dual 24" screens give me a lot more area to work with,
since I often have 5-7 apps on my desktop at a time.

The older square LCD's/Monitors required me to work in a vertical mode
while the wide screen units let me work left-right, as I would normally.

I run both screens at 1680x1050 on DVI connections for a clear image.

 

[Anteaus]

Actually, it be so we's can watch all those films we've pir- er I mean
purchased in the correct aspect ratio, matey.

 

[lbabus]

Looking to get a widescreen monitor for someone who is legally blind. Will
the monitor make text look bigger or will there be wasted space? Most of the
usage is internet and email. Please advise. Thanks.

 

[Shenan Stanley]

Widescreen or not isn't really your concern. A 20" widescreen and a 20" 4:3
screen will probably display the same physical sized text when in their
native resolutions.

What you want is likely a few things...

- Really large. 22-24" is where most people start, it's a price-break point
right now. If you can afford it - go with a 30" monitor.

- Lowered resolution. You want to get a monitor that *does not* have to be
put in its native resolution to have a clear picture. I know the Dell and
Samsung monitors have been good at this. I have several customers who have
bought 30" Dell monitors and run them at half the native resolution (native:
2560x1600, they use them at 1280x800) and they love them because they can
see everything easily and have plenty of space still.

- Brightness - you want a good monitor with an excellent contrast ratio.

If you don't want to use a lower resolution (really is the best way with the
larger monitors to get large text and keep everything proportional/easy to
read) - then you can change the DPI to a larger number, use large text and
icons and so on.

The widescreen is just the way of things now - nothing more. Think of it
like the warnings at the beginning of the VHS movies you could rent at one
time or of some TV stations: This movie has been formatted to fit your
screen. With the widescreen monitor - no need, but also you don't gain any
size on the movie (unless they happen to have a letterbox version or the
widescreen version and no choice of 4:3 formatted.)

 

[Paul]

Looking to get a widescreen monitor for someone who is legally blind. Will
the monitor make text look bigger or will there be wasted space? Most of the
usage is internet and email. Please advise. Thanks.

Have the person with the vision problem, accompany you to a local computer
store. Visit the Best Buy and look at monitors together. What is the
cheapest screen, that this person can see in comfort ? That will
give you some idea how much money it'll cost to get them a monitor.

As Shenan points out, the 30" LCD computer monitor is about the best you
can buy. With a resolution of 2560x1600 pixels in native resolution,
it gives you 100 dot per inch resolution across a screen which is
over 2 feet wide. The monitor requires a video card with "dual link DVI"
output, to get the best image quality (without the distortions of VGA).
On Newegg, I can see one for $1160 that has good reviews. But
whether that expense is required, really depends on how bad
the legally blind person's sight is.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824005115

Paul

 

[Gary Gary]

Text size is dependent on vertical height. The answer is to use a 22"
monitor (best value for money right now as they are often less than $100
used) and rotate it so its in portrait mode. (Watch the video of people
working at Google and you will see many, many workstations with 2
widescreen monitors in portrait mode.) Also, the font size of a 22"
monitor is larger than a 24" monitor being that the difference between 22"
and 24" is less than the resolution difference between 1680 x 1050 and
1920 x 1200. These figures apply to a 16:10 monitor. Many newer monitors
are worse: 16:9. Stay away from those obviously. If money is generous,
the largest font size you can get will be a 28" monitor as these typically
run at 1920 x 1200. Tigerdirect.com sell a lot of these for around $300.
They are not a high end monitor but if the user is not using it
professionally it should suffice. Lastly if the stand cannot rotate, and
most cannot these days, just buy an inexpensive (about $10-$30 used on
Ebay) monitor arm that rotates.

 

[vinay]

Also you can increase the text size in IE8 easily for internet use. Most
other applications allow that too.
If you think reasonably priced 20" monitors are not enough you can try
connecting 2 monitors to the PC, instead of paying exhorbitant price for one
very big monitor.

Windows comes with a magnifier tool but it is kind of annoying to use it.

BTW, it is not a mania to want widescreen or bigger monitors. When people
have eyesight problems it is a basic necessity.