20" widescreen compared to 19" regular

[biggestmuff]

Considering a 20" widescreen. I use a 19" Dell 1905 panel now. How much of a difference is the 20" in height? Since the 20" is wider, it won't be as tall as the 19" screen. I'm just wondering if the widescreen is worth it if I'm used to a 19".

 

[Barkotron]

I think they're roughly equivalent to a standard proportion 17" in height. Personally, I decided to stick with a normal 19" as I didn't want to lose the height. If I'm going to get a widescreen, which I'm sure I will at some point in the future, I'll go with at least a 24" model .

 

[mwmorph]

ws20" means you will lose quite a bit of screen area by switching from the 19" not worth it.

 

[Ike0069]

Yea, it's right about the height of a 17", unless you pivot it 90 deg. Then it's much taller.

 

[biggestmuff]

Thanks, all. Looks like I'll have to talk my wife into a 24"!

 

[Jules]

I came from a 19inch LCD to a 2005fpw and wouldnt go back. Also glad i didnt get a 2405 fpw. S-IPS > PVA

 

[1Dark1Sharigan1]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
ws20" means you will lose quite a bit of screen area by switching from the 19" not worth it.

Yeah, but you don't lose any vertical resolution and gain alot of horizontal resolution.

 

[oMeSSiaHo]

Actually you do lose a bit of vertical resolution but you gain a ton of horizontal resolution. I went from a 19" to my 2005fpw and I wouldnt change it. Look at a wall or something. You see more from side the side then you do up and down. I dont really care that I lost a measly inch or two vertically because I dont even notice it. My monitor seems bigger because my eyes are looking at it the way they are supposed to.

In the end I guess its really personal prefrence.

 

[o2brew]

A 20" widescreen has more vertical pixels, 1050, than a 4:3 19", 1024. Not much more, but you certainly do not lose anything. It is slightly shorter physically, but that has absolutely no effect on how much you can see.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Originally posted by: o2brew
A 20" widescreen has more vertical pixels, 1050, than a 4:3 19", 1024. Not much more, but you certainly do not lose anything. It is slightly shorter physically, but that has absolutely no effect on how much you can see.

But those pixels significantly smaller.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: joshsquall

Originally posted by: o2brew
A 20" widescreen has more vertical pixels, 1050, than a 4:3 19", 1024. Not much more, but you certainly do not lose anything. It is slightly shorter physically, but that has absolutely no effect on how much you can see.

But those pixels significantly smaller.

Get the widescreen

 

[imported_Crusader]

So now we're reduced to arguing about smaller pixels?

LOL.. you dont lose onscreen size with a WS20" and it looks just right.. maybe a 21" WS would be a better choice if one was anal about the size of individual pixels..

The bottom line isnt resolution, though you do see more on a 20WS than you do 19FS in every app and every method of using your PC.

You see MUCH more in games due to the WS aspect ratio.
And you see an amazing amount more when rotating a WS screen 90degrees like I am using mine right now.

1050x1680 is great for webpages since most are designed for either 800 or 1024 vertical pixel width max.

Since 1050 > 1024 you are set for most any webpage vertically and 1680 vertical is larger than a page from the NY Times.

24" is ok too of course but not as good for gaming as the Dell 2405 is a 6bit panel and also has a much higher resolution that I would not run without SLI.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Considering a 20" widescreen. I use a 19" Dell 1905 panel now. How much of a difference is the 20" in height? Since the 20" is wider, it won't be as tall as the 19" screen. I'm just wondering if the widescreen is worth it if I'm used to a 19".

I own both an Acer AL1912 and a Dell 2007fpw. Widescreen is definately worth it, especially with the BenQ 20.1" that's selling for $300 on Newegg.

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: Crusader
So now we're reduced to arguing about smaller pixels?

LOL.. you dont lose onscreen size with a WS20" and it looks just right.. maybe a 21" WS would be a better choice if one was anal about the size of individual pixels..

The bottom line isnt resolution, though you do see more on a 20WS than you do 19FS in every app and every method of using your PC.

You see MUCH more in games due to the WS aspect ratio.
And you see an amazing amount more when rotating a WS screen 90degrees like I am using mine right now.

1050x1680 is great for webpages since most are designed for either 800 or 1024 vertical pixel width max.

Since 1050 > 1024 you are set for most any webpage vertically and 1680 vertical is larger than a page from the NY Times.

24" is ok too of course but not as good for gaming as the Dell 2405 is a 6bit panel and also has a much higher resolution that I would not run without SLI.

Well said.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Considering a 20" widescreen. I use a 19" Dell 1905 panel now. How much of a difference is the 20" in height? Since the 20" is wider, it won't be as tall as the 19" screen. I'm just wondering if the widescreen is worth it if I'm used to a 19".

I own both an Acer AL1912 and a Dell 2007fpw. Widescreen is definately worth it, especially with the BenQ 20.1" that's selling for $300 on Newegg.

That monotor i think has bad color rendition, doesnt it? I know the veisonic of similer price does.

 

[Amplifier]

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Considering a 20" widescreen. I use a 19" Dell 1905 panel now. How much of a difference is the 20" in height? Since the 20" is wider, it won't be as tall as the 19" screen. I'm just wondering if the widescreen is worth it if I'm used to a 19".

I own both an Acer AL1912 and a Dell 2007fpw. Widescreen is definately worth it, especially with the BenQ 20.1" that's selling for $300 on Newegg.

That monotor i think has bad color rendition, doesnt it? I know the veisonic of similer price does.

The two monitors I use have fine color. I can't speak for the BenQ first hand, but the reviews aren't bad.

 

[moonboy403]

smaller pixel means a sharper image

i went from a 21" CRT to a 19" LCD and finally to a 20.1" widescreen (2005fpw)

let's just say i would never go back again

and the horizontal space that you gain is much more useful

 

[Heartbreaker]

Personally I say go with the most pixels. So choosing between 19" 12x10 and 20" 16x10, I say 20" WS all the way. But if choosing between 20" 16x10 WS and 20" 16x12 normal. I say Normal with 16x12 all the way.

See this size compare 19" 20" 20" WS and 17" Click on some source images to see what the black bars look like.
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e59bc4c34296ac6620e7d315d0d281b7

General screen real estate: 20inch 1.92 Million vs 20inch(wide)1.76 Million - I am a real estate junky. So this is no contest.

Analyze your usage and see what lines up for you.
For me. My honest usage is:

1: Web surfing. I do more of this than anything else. And here the extra height is a big advantage, extra width irellavant. So Normal wins.
2: Video Watching: A lot of my material is TV shows of the 4:3 variety along with 2:35 movies so it is a wash. Click on the comparitor with those sources and see how they compare.
3: Gaming: I play mostly older games, many are locked at 4:3. I also owned a Widescreen for a while I don't really notice a difference when I am actually in game which format I am in. Wash.
4: Work. No contest. On solaris the extra heigth of the normal screen is a big advantage Also I have a 1600x1200 screen at work that I remote into, so that is my minimum resolution.

 

[SunSamurai]

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: aeternitas

Originally posted by: Amplifier

Originally posted by: biggestmuff
Considering a 20" widescreen. I use a 19" Dell 1905 panel now. How much of a difference is the 20" in height? Since the 20" is wider, it won't be as tall as the 19" screen. I'm just wondering if the widescreen is worth it if I'm used to a 19".

I own both an Acer AL1912 and a Dell 2007fpw. Widescreen is definately worth it, especially with the BenQ 20.1" that's selling for $300 on Newegg.

That monotor i think has bad color rendition, doesnt it? I know the veisonic of similer price does.

The two monitors I use have fine color. I can't speak for the BenQ first hand, but the reviews aren't bad.

I only realy on reviews of what im going to look at in the store on native rez. The veiwsonic had VX some
BAD color rendition but a low price.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: mwmorph
ws20" means you will lose quite a bit of screen area by switching from the 19" not worth it.

yeah, but you gain a whole ton of desktop area

 

[Jules]

Originally posted by: guidryp
Personally I say go with the most pixels. So choosing between 19" 12x10 and 20" 16x10, I say 20" WS all the way. But if choosing between 20" 16x10 WS and 20" 16x12 normal. I say Normal with 16x12 all the way.

See this size compare 19" 20" 20" WS and 17" Click on some source images to see what the black bars look like.
http://tvcalculator.com/index.html?e59bc4c34296ac6620e7d315d0d281b7

General screen real estate: 20inch 1.92 Million vs 20inch(wide)1.76 Million - I am a real estate junky. So this is no contest.

Analyze your usage and see what lines up for you.
For me. My honest usage is:

1: Web surfing. I do more of this than anything else. And here the extra height is a big advantage, extra width irellavant. So Normal wins.
2: Video Watching: A lot of my material is TV shows of the 4:3 variety along with 2:35 movies so it is a wash. Click on the comparitor with those sources and see how they compare.
3: Gaming: I play mostly older games, many are locked at 4:3. I also owned a Widescreen for a while I don't really notice a difference when I am actually in game which format I am in. Wash.
4: Work. No contest. On solaris the extra heigth of the normal screen is a big advantage Also I have a 1600x1200 screen at work that I remote into, so that is my minimum resolution.

LOL the same guy that always puts WS down.


Go for the widescreen OP you wont regret it.

 

[openwheelformula1]

similar sized panels, always take the WS. Period.

 

[dfloyd]

Look at all the owners of widescreen and what they are saying. I agree with them 100%, 20" Widescreen is far superior to a 19" standard. All this arguments about 20"s being shorter ignore the fact that are eyes are not placed vertically, they are placed horizontally so you see more naturally on a widescreen. Maybe if they were placed on top of each other instead of beside each other it would be different. So definatly if you can get it the 20" widescreen is a great monitor, especially the Dells (Super easy to adjust, up down and around, am sure some others are but not familiar with them).

So many people ignore the fact of how our eyes are designed. And honestly I will never go back to a non wide screen monitor, I dont care if it was a 1600 x 1200 20" vs my current, count the pixels all you want. Like the saying goes, seeing is believing and wide screens in games, movies, web pages, document creation, and more are just much more pleasing imo.