• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

1920x1080 monitors ..... why?

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
dpodblood said:
That SC2 image has been shown repeatedly on this forum, and it proves nothing except how it is implemented for that specific game.
Click to expand...

Indeed, and as has been noted ad nauseum :

Get a decent 1920x1200 display, disable image scaling, and you have the best of both worlds, can use 16:9 when you want, or 16:10 for productivity. Also worth noting that the internet is still painfully vertical in most content.

I would prefer a 2560x1440 16:9 to a 1920x1200 16:10 so long as the screen size is large enough just like I would prefer a 2560x1600 16:10 to that 2560x1440 screen. Mo better man!
 
yh125d said:
There isn't anything else to show, except physical size. That GIF is intended to show the considerable differences in horizontal FOV. The vertical FOV doesn't change, you don't see anything more. Its just that what you see is rendered across more pixels. With 16:9, you do see more.
Click to expand...

Um, no.


You do see more vertically if you have more vertical pixels.

It is not just an aspect ratio thing. The game is not stretching it to fill a certain border dimension with a set resolution.

ESPECIALLY on RTS games, being able to see in all directions is important. Wide screen really only matters in games where you really do not need to look up or down (that much). Perfect for racing games.
 
intogamer said:
Which tablet is this?
Click to expand...

Toshiba Portege M200

Funny, I just googled "Toshiba M200 1440x1050" and the first result is a post I posted back in 2006. 😀

41xd2.jpg
 
dpodblood said:
That SC2 image has been shown repeatedly on this forum, and it proves nothing except how it is implemented for that specific game.
Click to expand...

Well, its more than that specific game, but you're right. I just couldn't tell if people were writing off the resolution entirely or just 1080p monitors, wanted to demonstrate that the resolution itself is not useless. Like Arkaign said, better to have to 16:10 and adjust to 16:9 when needed. I use a 16:10 myself.
 
Ninjahedge said:
Short wide screens are a PITA for things like Word and Excel.

Why?

Look at your menus, for one. They only take up a small portion of the width of the screen unless you have really started customizing. This is wasted space at the edge.

And what about the title bar, you really need it to say "Foo.xls" and have the rest of your 1920 pixels wide just sitting there displaying a blue bar with a grey outline?

Bottom line is, it all depends on what you use it for the most. Games and movies, sure, pay less for 1080 vertical. Office work? You may want more pixels, regardless of where they are put, but not in something with an aspect ratio not geared for it.
Click to expand...

It seems productivity software is still designed for 4:3. When I moved from a 5:4 monitor to widescreen, I used to maximize the Word window out of habit until I realized how inefficient that was. The document doesn't nearly cover the entire width of the screen, and if you zoom to fit the page width, the text gets huge.

Now I make the window about 50% the width of the screen, so I can have either another document or some other window open beside it. But when I'm just working with the one document, it feels like such a waste of pixels.

Same with websites. Try opening the AT front page in a maximized browser window on your 16:9 screen. The actual useful text covers maybe 25% of the width. Still, you have to scroll like a maniac to see all of the text because you see so little of it at a time. At least browsers are starting to utilize widescreen better, by putting all the GUI elements in one or two rows (even in the actual window titlebar sometimes) to conserver vertical space.

Portrait mode might be a solution, but with a 16:9 screen, you get the opposite problem. It's just too narrow in portrait mode. It looks ridiculous. It's so tall that you can't read it entirely without moving your head slightly up and down, which might eventually cause pain in the neck and upper back.

Also, with vertical space at such a premium, maybe having the taskbar running along the bottom of the screen is not such a good idea any more.
 
Last edited:
Agreed JG.

Maybe they just need a good paired monitor?

I liked turning my 17" onits side next to the 4:3 20". It felt right (until I got anothe 20").

I don't mind haing letterboxing on some films and other things if the extra space is used for other things later.

The most annoying thing I have seen recently is trying to do anything on my wife's laptop (NO comments!!!). The vertical resolution is so small that you have to croll to see anything, especially with title bars, menu bars, shortcuts, tabs, status bars and your Taskbar......

BTW, what is with that funky 16:9 ratio anyway. Who the hell came up with that? Are there ANY movies that are really made at that ratio? I thought screen ratios were even wider for most fliks......
 
Ninjahedge said:
BTW, what is with that funky 16:9 ratio anyway. Who the hell came up with that? Are there ANY movies that are really made at that ratio? I thought screen ratios were even wider for most fliks......
Click to expand...
16:9 was a compromise between aspect ratios. Modern(ish) movies are wider than that, but older movies and of course older TV programs were 4:3 or close to it. 16:9 was the mean value between all of these common aspect ratios. Anything wider would result in a smaller area for 4:3, and anything narrower would result in a smaller area for 2.40:1 and other wider than widescreen aspect ratios.
 
Oh yeah I'm waiting for them to have transparent screens you know so life will be complete!

Then as a civilization (not a country) we build a big ass space ship that goes the speed of light and takes almost six years to find a planet full of germanium-X and 9 foot tall blue tabby cat looking vulcan knock off bipeds to defend it and their phosphorescent spaghetti trees!

I don't give a shit, I'll have a transparent screen to read my Jack London short story on while taking the 500mph nuclear train to the fish market. This way if a chimp out starts behind my screen I will have time to react, yo!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top