Author Topic: To wide-screen or not to wide-screen (Read 106,364 times)

lanux128 · « **Reply #25 on:** November 06, 2007, 07:16 AM »

i froogled for dvi cables and it doesn't seem that expensive.. maybe i should get one for better viewing quality..

tomos · « **Reply #26 on:** November 06, 2007, 08:45 AM »

Quote from: Darwin on November 06, 2007, 01:25 AM

I have a friend that bought a 21.4" Samsung with 3000:1 contrast ratio. I'm not sure why he needed it (suspect he doesn't) but I'm gathering from people's choices here that 800:1 (which is a lot cheaper where I am) would be just fine for normal usage?

I was looking at a catalogue & some advertising/junk mail yesterday.
I was suprised even in the catalogue for some screens they were saying
Kontrast (dyn.) 3000:1
others then were listed without the dynamic bit - (are they using the same word in english - I think so)

Read somewhere here lately someone saying dynamic contrast wasnt worth much...?
& that the actual contrast much more important

Unfortunately they often dont say what the actual contrast is
which means you've got to go research

There was a thread lately (name?) where (nudone, I think) was saying go for 1000:1 if you can $:-\$

f0dder · « **Reply #27 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:53 AM »

Also keep in mind that a DVI output can be converted to VGA/D-SUB, but not the other way around (well, perhaps with some expensive peripheral, but...).

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #28 on:** November 06, 2007, 12:06 PM »

Quote from: lanux128 on November 06, 2007, 07:16 AM

i froogled for dvi cables and it doesn't seem that expensive.. maybe i should get one for better viewing quality..

If both your video card and monitor support DVI -- YES. It makes a tremendous difference. Go for it.

Tekzel · « **Reply #29 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:27 PM »

I am in the pro-widescreen camp, firmly. I replaced my CRTs a while back with a couple of Mag 19" widescreen LCDs and have never looked back. I have yet to find a scenario where I would prefer a 4:3 display, I dont really play older games and the games I have played to date all support the native 1440x900 resolution of my screen. I will never use a 4:3 again. I also like the Mag because it has 3 inputs, 1 DVI that goes to my computer and 2x VGA that one of which goes to my Xbox 360. I plan on trying to find a VGA adapter for my PS2 and hooking it up to my third input!

F0dder, I am curious about the comment you made where you felt the 4:3 display is better for coding. I couldn't disagree more, and I am curious what your reasoning is.

f0dder · « **Reply #30 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:32 PM »

Quote from: Tekzel on November 06, 2007, 02:27 PM

F0dder, I am curious about the comment you made where you felt the 4:3 display is better for coding. I couldn't disagree more, and I am curious what your reasoning is.

I tend to maximize my apps, it's faster than manually resizing... a text editor (notepad++) becomes way too wide this way, and even visual studio with solution explorer, toolbox etc. open is quite wide enough. On a widescreen, there's simply too much wasted space if you maximize, in my opinion, and I'm afraid that might encourage having way too long source lines.

Lashiec · « **Reply #31 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:42 PM »

Companies tend to not include DVI cables to cut costs. They don't even give you DVI-VGA converters, those are provided by graphic cards manufacturers. That reminds me that my DVI cable is purchase pending

Also, another good reason for not going 16:9 is desktop space. Currently, I have the printer at one side, and it would be difficult to fit a wide screen panel, at least with enough space for the speakers to be separated from the screen.

Darwin · « **Reply #32 on:** November 06, 2007, 02:55 PM »

More food for thought. I don't game and I don't watch movies on my computer (very often, anyway). Seems there may be compelling reasons to avoid widescreen given that I, too, like to maximize my apps (Word, Excel, Access) when working?

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #33 on:** November 06, 2007, 03:14 PM »

Quote from: Darwin on November 06, 2007, 02:55 PM

More food for thought. I don't game and I don't watch movies on my computer (very often, anyway). Seems there may be compelling reasons to avoid widescreen given that I, too, like to maximize my apps (Word, Excel, Access) when working?

Unless you're buying a panel that HONESTLY shows (say) 2560x1024 pixels, and your video card can support that resolution, there will be horizontal stretching by the drivers and hardware. Fugly, fugly, fugly.

In most cases it's better and cheaper to go with a pair of 4:3 panels and let Windows "expand your desktop".

Darwin · « **Reply #34 on:** November 06, 2007, 03:21 PM »

OK - thanks for confirming that, Ralf. I guess the final "step" in considering this should be to hook my notebook up to my friend's monitor and see if the anaemic Centrino video card is up to the task. I'd hate to spend the money only to find that the secondary monitor flickers on me...

Tekzel · « **Reply #35 on:** November 06, 2007, 07:39 PM »

Quote from: f0dder on November 06, 2007, 02:32 PM

Quote from: Tekzel on November 06, 2007, 02:27 PM
F0dder, I am curious about the comment you made where you felt the 4:3 display is better for coding. I couldn't disagree more, and I am curious what your reasoning is.
I tend to maximize my apps, it's faster than manually resizing... a text editor (notepad++) becomes way too wide this way, and even visual studio with solution explorer, toolbox etc. open is quite wide enough. On a widescreen, there's simply too much wasted space if you maximize, in my opinion, and I'm afraid that might encourage having way too long source lines.

Ah ok, I understand where you are coming from. For me, personally, I still disagree.

I also maximize windows most of the time and I find the extra width to be more help than hinderance. I personally find the widescreen format to be, in all ways, better than the old 4:3. I like it wide, so much so that I have two wide screen displays side by side. Guess its different strokes and all that.

TPReal · « **Reply #36 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:01 PM »

Hello.

I've recently bought a new laptop, and it is wide-screen. I didn't want it to be but they produce mostly wide-screen laptops now. At the beginning I was skeptical about this, but now I got used to and I can say it isn't any worse than a normal 4:3 screen (those screens now seem for me to be almost square

). I tested a number of games, and most of them can be switched to match the monitor's real resolution, so they are not stretched, and the rest of them are stretched by default, but in my graphic card's (nVIDIA) driver I found an option to lock the ratio so that the view just doesn't use the whole width of the screen. Or you can disable resizing completely, and then the image doesn't touch any side of the screen.

On the other hand, when viewing a text file, or writing code, I sometimes miss some height, while there's a lot of unused place on the right side. But you can put there the Start bar if you wish, or in IDEs like BDS you can use this place for Object Inspector or Project Manager, which I wouldnt put there on 3:4 because they would make the code less readable for me (I don't like narrow code editing fields).

So to sum up, if you already badly miss height, consider buying 4:3. Otherwise, I'd recomment wide-screen.

TPR.

nontroppo · « **Reply #37 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:16 PM »

Though partially off-topic (buying LCDs in general), this article was the best intro to LCD purchasing I've sen in a while:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000991.html

We have a widescreen Dell at work which is a TN, and boy is its colour response horrible! The differences between it and our NECs (VA) and CinemaDisplay (IPS) is astounding. On topic the widescreen is nice for app management (horizontal document comparison, text diffing is amazing on widescreen!), but I'd rather take two IPS monitors over a widescreen TN any day.

Jeff links to this nice LCD buying guide:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide-f2007.html

David A · « **Reply #38 on:** November 06, 2007, 09:52 PM »

About wide-screen:

I have a normal 4:3 displays at work and home. On the display I usually have two windows side by side, be it web-browsers, terminals, pdf-readers or text-editors. I have instructed firefox not to allow sites to change its width. (And I hate apps that starts in full screen mode.) With 1600x1200 there is plenty of width.

I don't think of "wide screen" as more width, but rather less height.

Nod5 · « **Reply #39 on:** November 06, 2007, 10:35 PM »

A somewhat related questions: does anyone of you with LCD monitors use some suspension or wall fitting or "skycrane-like" arm to hold it or do you use the reglar plastic base that it came with? Whas it expensive? Any drawbacks? I'm planning to get some such alternative to the plastic base for my computer monitor at home. I want to use the entire table area, slide slide papers in under the (suspended) monitor and so on.

BTW I also prefer the 4:3 format. Though if I were to buy a new LCD screen today I might get one that can be (physically) rotated 90 degrees. Very useful for those of us that read a lot of pdf files on the screen.

Curt · « **Reply #40 on:** November 06, 2007, 11:37 PM »

I think of wide screen as ten thousand old wallpapers that will no more fit the screen.

And as letters and documents looking different on the recievers screen, from what I intended them to.

Edit: BTW:
My LCD is from before LCD was invented, I guess; it is from the previous century. 786,432 pixels.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #41 on:** November 06, 2007, 11:44 PM »

Quote from: Nod5 on November 06, 2007, 10:35 PM

BTW I also prefer the 4:3 format. Though if I were to buy a new LCD screen today I might get one that can be (physically) rotated 90 degrees. Very useful for those of us that read a lot of pdf files on the screen.

To your first point, stands or mounts probably depends on the hardware supplied. I use the stands supplied with my two Samsung 214Ts (1600x1200). They provide a lot of adjustment: height, tilt, rotation. Were I to refit my study I might build the computer section around wall mounts but, for now, I have a bunch of stuff I'd rather not see lurking behind the panels so I'm content.

FWIW, I thought when I bought these monitors that it'd be as useful as all get out to rotate them to 'portrait' mode, especially for dtp etc. In fact I tried it once and never bothered to do so again. I find 1200 vertical resolution gives me all that I need for full-page 8x11" documents (reading or layout).

The way I'm set up now, I haven't room for more horizontal screens without some prior upheaval (there's a little Ralf Maximus envy here, though) but I'd sure like to have a grid of 4. That arrangement would surely need wall mounts, eh?

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #42 on:** November 07, 2007, 12:41 AM »

Quote

The way I'm set up now, I haven't room for more horizontal screens without some prior upheaval (there's a little Ralf Maximus envy here, though) but I'd sure like to have a grid of 4. That arrangement would surely need wall mounts, eh?

Nah. You just need a standard-size desk with nothing else on the back half, and accept the loss of physical real-estate.

I *used* to have three 19" glass monitors, and that was retarded. I barely had room for my keyboard and had to sit back in my chair to avoid bumping my nose into Windows. The pic below is a bit out of date -- I now have four identical Acer 19" panels instead of the mix-and-mash... but it serves to illustrate.

cranioscopical · « **Reply #43 on:** November 07, 2007, 01:54 AM »

Quote from: Ralf Maximus on November 07, 2007, 12:41 AM

Nah. You just need a standard-size desk with nothing else on the back half, and accept the loss of physical real-estate.
I *used* to have three 19" glass monitors, and that was retarded. I barely had room for my keyboard and had to sit back in my chair to avoid bumping my nose into Windows.

You're right but...

My computer desk is 63". The two monitors I now have take up 37". So, I could have 3 without changing built-in furniture but I'm thinking of four.
Some of the new, larger Acer monitors look interesting and have been reasonably well reviewed (and are going for a song compared to the amount I paid for mine not so long ago -- always true that). Perhaps 3 of those would work well.

I find buying monitors to be a bit problematic. The only real way to tell if a particular model is right is to run it in situ and then with the kinds of applications one uses regularly. So few places are set up to allow even the latter. Also, it gets a bit expensive to upgrade 2 or 3 at a time and I don't want mismatched panels (though reduced prices probably mean that buying three, now, would cost less than my current two did when new).

I know what you mean about sitting back from large CRTs. I have a few 22" Philips still in my basement. You can't give them away these days

lanux128 · « **Reply #44 on:** November 07, 2007, 02:30 AM »

Quote from: nontroppo on November 06, 2007, 09:16 PM

Jeff links to this nice LCD buying guide:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide-f2007.html

thanks nontroppo, via this link i found a review on Samsung 931BW.

tomos · « **Reply #45 on:** November 07, 2007, 09:37 AM »

Quote from: lanux128 on November 07, 2007, 02:30 AM

Quote from: nontroppo on November 06, 2007, 09:16 PM
Jeff links to this nice LCD buying guide:

http://www.xbitlabs.com/articles/other/display/lcd-guide-f2007.html

thanks nontroppo, via this link i found a review on Samsung 931BW.

it gets a good review there!

I get confused when they talk about 100nit White:

By default, the monitor has 100% brightness and 75% contrast. When the contrast setting is increased above its default, details get lost in lightest color tones. To achieve a 100nit brightness of white I reduced the brightness and contrast settings to 31% and 33%, respectively.

if 100nit white is "ideal" (?) does that mean youre losing out on lots of contrast - he reduces it to 33%
had a look a a few reviews there & this seems typical - he's not complaining about it so I guess it's okay
But I'm still curious..

When i look it up in google I just get the xbitlabs site,
when i look it up in wikipedia I get a list of articles about basketball teams

Dirhael · « **Reply #46 on:** November 07, 2007, 01:42 PM »

I wonder how many of the resident "widescreen-haters" here uses applications that has sidebars/panels, like oh I don't know, just about every IDE available? Because if you do, I don't understand how you can stand using such programs on a 4:3, or even worse, 5:4 monitor. A dual-monitor setup can't help you with such things either, so a widescreen is the only reasonable solution.

At my previous job they used 1280x1024 (5:4) monitors, and software that always had a sidebar open...and I absolutely hated using it.

Darwin · « **Reply #47 on:** November 07, 2007, 02:14 PM »

I'll probably be joining you in widescreen nirvana, Dirhael. I live in a small town and AFAICT widescreen is about the only choice I'll have. I'm agnostic on the issue of the merits of 4:3/5:5/16:9 from a user's perspective. Mostly because I've never used a widescreen monitor in computing. Only one in the house is on my wife's personal notebook and I haven't really tried to use it "prodcutively" (just poke around on it updating security apps and troubleshooting the odd problem for her). So we'll see... I can tell you that I always disable sidebars in software because of the real estate it takes up on my computer, so 16:9 might be a refreshing change for me and allow me to utilize features of varous apps' GUI that I've not been able to use fully in the past.

Ralf Maximus · « **Reply #48 on:** November 07, 2007, 03:51 PM »

Quote from: Dirhael on November 07, 2007, 01:42 PM

A dual-monitor setup can't help you with such things either, so a widescreen is the only

Explain this, please. I'm simply drawing a blank. My auxillary monitors are *crammed* with sidebars and toolbars and whatnot.

tomos · « **Reply #49 on:** November 07, 2007, 04:10 PM »

Quote from: Ralf Maximus on November 07, 2007, 03:51 PM

Quote from: Dirhael on November 07, 2007, 01:42 PM
A dual-monitor setup can't help you with such things either, so a widescreen is the only

Explain this, please. I'm simply drawing a blank. My auxillary monitors are *crammed* with sidebars and toolbars and whatnot.

I had been thinking along Dirhaels lines but then I keep generally keep a lot of toolbars hidden.
Of course it depends on what programmes, but,
I guess with "auxillary" monitors you can feel free to open loads of toolbars & wouldnt even have to have toolbars from diff apps overlying each other..