Options

Bring back non-widescreen monitors in stores

13»

Comments

  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    Your threads have been merged, as they are on the same subject.

    Who has merged my threads? Was it a Site Administrator? I didn't realize they could do that..

    I was sure I made a brand new thread last night, then I was confused this morning when I saw my post on this thread. I thought I had got it wrong! I noticed last night that I had got 2 replies, but I did not read them, have those replies been moved to this thread?
  • Options
    StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Who has merged my threads? Was it a Site Administrator? I didn't realize they could do that..

    I was sure I made a brand new thread last night, then I was confused this morning when I saw my post on this thread. I thought I had got it wrong! I noticed last night that I had got 2 replies, but I did not read them, have those replies been moved to this thread?
    It's fairly obvious the replies have been merged too:
    diablo wrote: »
    I seem to recall a similar thread from a few days ago -

    http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showthread.php?t=2087288

    - also started by yourself I see. :)

    I usually use my 21" monitor to view stuff from my laptop. It is widescreen and fits neatly into the unit under my 32" TV. Most of the websites I visit adapt to widescreen display and as I usually sit six feet away or more I have the settings which enable me to see text clearly. I have no problems at all.
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    It's fairly obvious the replies have been merged too:

    but was it you who moved my post on to this thread? was it you who deleted my new thread and transferred into a post on this thread? Just wondering...
    .
    .
  • Options
    oilmanoilman Posts: 4,529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Why does everybody make this so complicated? Just use oxymoronic common sense.

    Decide how high you want your 4:3 monitor to be if you were not buying a widescreen.

    Buy a widescreen monitor which has a height closest to that.
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    oilman wrote: »
    Why does everybody make this so complicated? Just use oxymoronic common sense.

    Decide how high you want your 4:3 monitor to be if you were not buying a widescreen.

    Buy a widescreen monitor which has a height closest to that.

    But not everyone needs the vast width of a widescreen monitor. For example, to get the same height as a 19 inch 5:4 monitor, I'd have to get a huge 24 inch 16:9 one.

    http://www.displaywars.com/19-inch-5x4-vs-24-inch-16x9

    Even then the 5:4 one is still 1/10th of an inch taller (11.87 vs 11.77 inches).

    Also with a large widescreen monitor, as the resolutions are quite high, this makes everything smaller, so you have to sit quite close to see everything clearly. When you do this however, you find that the edges of the screen are at the edges of your field of vision (you before you get to peripheral vision). This means having to keep looking to the left and right to see the corners of the screen (to open start menu or close a window etc) or even having to turn my head. I think 16:10 or better still 4:3 fits our vision better.

    A 19 inch screen at 1280x1024 or a 17 inch screen at 1024x768 has a considerably lower pixel density than modern high resolution displays, which means everything is larger. Something I miss :(
  • Options
    call100call100 Posts: 7,278
    Forum Member
    But not everyone needs the vast width of a widescreen monitor. For example, to get the same height as a 19 inch 5:4 monitor, I'd have to get a huge 24 inch 16:9 one.

    http://www.displaywars.com/19-inch-5x4-vs-24-inch-16x9

    Even then the 5:4 one is still 1/10th of an inch taller (11.87 vs 11.77 inches).

    Also with a large widescreen monitor, as the resolutions are quite high, this makes everything smaller, so you have to sit quite close to see everything clearly. When you do this however, you find that the edges of the screen are at the edges of your field of vision (you before you get to peripheral vision). This means having to keep looking to the left and right to see the corners of the screen (to open start menu or close a window etc) or even having to turn my head. I think 16:10 or better still 4:3 fits our vision better.

    A 19 inch screen at 1280x1024 or a 17 inch screen at 1024x768 has a considerably lower pixel density than modern high resolution displays, which means everything is larger. Something I miss :(
    A huge 24" one?? Do people still buy monitors that small....;-)
  • Options
    oilmanoilman Posts: 4,529
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    But not everyone needs the vast width of a widescreen monitor. For example, to get the same height as a 19 inch 5:4 monitor, I'd have to get a huge 24 inch 16:9 one.

    http://www.displaywars.com/19-inch-5x4-vs-24-inch-16x9

    Even then the 5:4 one is still 1/10th of an inch taller (11.87 vs 11.77 inches).

    Also with a large widescreen monitor, as the resolutions are quite high, this makes everything smaller, so you have to sit quite close to see everything clearly. When you do this however, you find that the edges of the screen are at the edges of your field of vision (you before you get to peripheral vision). This means having to keep looking to the left and right to see the corners of the screen (to open start menu or close a window etc) or even having to turn my head. I think 16:10 or better still 4:3 fits our vision better.

    A 19 inch screen at 1280x1024 or a 17 inch screen at 1024x768 has a considerably lower pixel density than modern high resolution displays, which means everything is larger. Something I miss :(

    Oh - 1/10th of an inch different in height - that is a showstopper!
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    call100 wrote: »
    A huge 24" one?? Do people still buy monitors that small....;-)

    It depends how close you sit... From 2 feet away 24 inches is pretty damn huge!
  • Options
    diablodiablo Posts: 8,300
    Forum Member

    Also with a large widescreen monitor, as the resolutions are quite high, this makes everything smaller, so you have to sit quite close to see everything clearly. When you do this however, you find that the edges of the screen are at the edges of your field of vision (you before you get to peripheral vision). This means having to keep looking to the left and right to see the corners of the screen (to open start menu or close a window etc) or even having to turn my head. I think 16:10 or better still 4:3 fits our vision better.

    (

    One of the wonders of Windows, if that is what you use, is that windows can be resized and by using the ctrl/+ keys the contents can be forced to a larger text size.

    Even the primitive Internet Explorer browser can be made fairly usable this way, though with NoSquint on Firefox the display options are almost infinite. That's what I use. :)
  • Options
    call100call100 Posts: 7,278
    Forum Member
    It depends how close you sit... From 2 feet away 24 inches is pretty damn huge!

    Not really, I sit a couple of feet away from a 27" and it's fine..... Contemplating a new larger one.
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    call100 wrote: »
    Not really, I sit a couple of feet away from a 27" and it's fine..... Contemplating a new larger one.

    You must have a very large field of vision then... Even watching video fullscreen from 2 feet away on my 21.5 inch widescreen monitor is the equivalent size of seeing it at a movie theater. Isn't 27 inches big enough for you?? Any bigger and you'll need a flatscreen tv!
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    diablo wrote: »
    One of the wonders of Windows, if that is what you use, is that windows can be resized and by using the ctrl/+ keys the contents can be forced to a larger text size.

    Even the primitive Internet Explorer browser can be made fairly usable this way, though with NoSquint on Firefox the display options are almost infinite. That's what I use. :)

    True, I could resize my browser to only 1280 pixels wide, but then what is the point of leaving the other pixels wasted with empty desktop at the sides of the screen? I could also zoom in, but then I'd lose a lot of vertical space and we're back to the beggining with the lack of vertical space with widescreen.

    As I said before, with widescreen, you either lack vertical space, or have too much horizontal space, there is no happy medium. Most applications just don't benefit from widescreen.

    This reminds me of people who buy a widescreen tv and then stretch all thier old tv shows to fit the screen because they don't want to waste any of the space they payed for. Same with widescreen monitors. And I can't blame them.

    I'm sure if it was somehow possible to stretch websites to fill the screen, everyone would be doing it - even if it did make your facebook selfie pictures look fat!

    What is the point of buying a 24 inch monitor when all the websites are a maximum of 19 inches wide when you can buy a 19 inch square monitor and have most websites fill the screen?
  • Options
    call100call100 Posts: 7,278
    Forum Member
    You must have a very large field of vision then... Even watching video fullscreen from 2 feet away on my 21.5 inch widescreen monitor is the equivalent size of seeing it at a movie theater. Isn't 27 inches big enough for you?? Any bigger and you'll need a flatscreen tv!

    No problem with the field of vision.......Looking at THIS next. ;-):D
  • Options
    StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    call100 wrote: »
    No problem with the field of vision.......Looking at THIS next. ;-):D

    No kidding, I have got one of these: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-066-DE

    It's one of the best things I've ever bought, it's great for working on two documents side by side.
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    No kidding, I have got one of these: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-066-DE

    It's one of the best things I've ever bought, it's great for working on two documents side by side.

    And I'll think I'll be looking at this for my next monitor: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Dell-2007FP-Ultrasharp-20-1-Monitor/dp/B0031U1AE6

    Not that many monitors were made in the 20 - 21 inch 1600x1200 spec, and those that are, are really expensive. This is pretty much the largest 4:3 monitor you can get. This is one that is actually at a reasonable price. More vertical space than a 1080p monitor and less white space on websites. Perfect!

    I don't need or want to have 2 things on the screen side by side, I just don't see the point, I prefer to have 1 thing on the screen at a time taking up my whole attention, and I want that thing to fill as much of the screen as possible. Widescreens don't do this very well:(

    In the near future I'd like to see 4:3 22-24 inch 1920x1440 screens in the market. Unfortunately I think I'll be waiting a long time :(

    I think my vertical field of vision is pretty good top to bottom but not so good left to right. I find that I have to tilt my head slightly to look into the corners of my widescreen monitor. But I can just about see from the top of my monitor to the bottom of my keyboard without moving my head, I only move it a little when typing.


    Imagine a 4:3 27 inch screen. Think of all that vertical space! You may like super wide but I like super tall. I like tall and wide not just wide. I prefer the height to be similar to the width. You guys may think that would be too tall but I wouldn't!
  • Options
    call100call100 Posts: 7,278
    Forum Member
    Stig wrote: »
    No kidding, I have got one of these: https://www.overclockers.co.uk/showproduct.php?prodid=MO-066-DE

    It's one of the best things I've ever bought, it's great for working on two documents side by side.

    It's a bit on the small side though......;-):D:D Seriously......Nice monitor.:cool:
  • Options
    StigStig Posts: 12,446
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I don't need or want to have 2 things on the screen side by side, I just don't see the point
    Then you obviously don't work with multiple applications or documents, which many of us do.

    What do you actually do with your PC?
  • Options
    Steffan_LeachSteffan_Leach Posts: 4,669
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Stig wrote: »
    Then you obviously don't work with multiple applications or documents, which many of us do.

    What do you actually do with your PC?

    Most of the time I'm internet browsing so I use a maximized window, as I don't need anything else at the side of the screen. Other times I play games, which run fullscreen. I use Microsoft Office and other applications fairly regularly. I have tried the 2 windows side by side on a 1920x1080 monitor, but I find it makes the windows too narrow, I don't have enough side to side space or I have to make stuff smaller.

    I don't see the point of it anyway. I can easily switch between applications, hence why we have the taskbar. Sure it may save a click or two, but I'd much rather have each application use more of the screen. And having multiple documents side by side?Unless you're doing some sort of comparison work, just what is the point?
Sign In or Register to comment.