• 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.

Go Widescreen or 4:3 LCD?

I

Intelman07

Senior member
I'm looking to buy an LCD monitor, since my good old CRT just died. I don't know whether I want a widescreen or 4:3 monitor though - what do you think is better? I'm looking at this widescreen at Staples; does anyone know if it's a good monitor for gaming?

V7 Series 19" Widescreen LCD Monitor R19WPS


If not, I could use suggestions of fairly resonably priced monitors that are good for gaming. Thanks.
 
im on a 4:3 monitor, and it serves its purpose. What do you usually do with your comp? Me being at 1600x1200 makes my screen plenty big for what I do.
 
I really enjoy my 20" 1600x1200 monitor, but I think the next one I buy will be widescreen.
 
Once I picked up my 2005 FPW 20" widescreen from dell, I couldn't believe what I delt with in the past. Best $ I ever spent on a computer anything.
 
Originally posted by: TipsyMcStagger
Ive had a 2005FPW for over a year now. Widescreen is great.
Click to expand...

Same. I paid $480 for mine but I've seen it as cheap as $334, last November.

Anything < $379 shipped is a good deal.
 
Unless you can get a really big widescreen monitor (in the territory that 4:3 monitors don't exist) I'd stick with 4:3.

There are more pixels in a 2007FP than a 2005FPW.

Check out the link in my signature to do your own research.

Widescreen is a great joke played on those who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Unless you can get a really big widescreen monitor (in the territory that 4:3 monitors don't exist) I'd stick with 4:3.

There are more pixels in a 2007FP than a 2005FPW.

Check out the link in my signature to do your own research.

Widescreen is a great joke played on those who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

Not if you have a 24" at 1920x1200 😛. Thats next to my 23" 1920x1200 also 😛

If you watch quite a bit of tv stuff on your comp the widescreen is nice to have but imo the 20" ones res is too low for me.

Koing
 
Originally posted by: Koing
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Unless you can get a really big widescreen monitor (in the territory that 4:3 monitors don't exist) I'd stick with 4:3.

There are more pixels in a 2007FP than a 2005FPW.

Check out the link in my signature to do your own research.

Widescreen is a great joke played on those who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

Not if you have a 24" at 1920x1200 😛. Thats next to my 23" 1920x1200 also 😛

If you watch quite a bit of tv stuff on your comp the widescreen is nice to have but imo the 20" ones res is too low for me.

Koing
Click to expand...

Like I said, really big where 4:3's don't exist. Fewer than 1200 vertical pixels is absolutely unacceptable these days. A 23/24" is the smallest 16:10 display I would ever consider.

Once you get into large displays widescreen does start making sense, but all the people buying 20" widescreens are a little short-sighted.

Viper GTS
 
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Originally posted by: Koing
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Unless you can get a really big widescreen monitor (in the territory that 4:3 monitors don't exist) I'd stick with 4:3.

There are more pixels in a 2007FP than a 2005FPW.

Check out the link in my signature to do your own research.

Widescreen is a great joke played on those who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

Not if you have a 24" at 1920x1200 😛. Thats next to my 23" 1920x1200 also 😛

If you watch quite a bit of tv stuff on your comp the widescreen is nice to have but imo the 20" ones res is too low for me.

Koing
Click to expand...

Like I said, really big where 4:3's don't exist. Fewer than 1200 vertical pixels is absolutely unacceptable these days. A 23/24" is the smallest 16:10 display I would ever consider.

Once you get into large displays widescreen does start making sense, but all the people buying 20" widescreens are a little short-sighted.

Viper GTS
Click to expand...

Yup. Not really a market or bigger then 1600x1200 on the 4:3 lcd imo.

In 2002 I was debating 2x20" 1600x1200 displays or a single 23" 1920x1200 display. I went with the bigger 23". The split down the middle is poor. Now that I run dual with a 24" it is nice. The 30" would be sweet but my graphics card can't handle it and I would have to do a mobo+cpu upgrade as well as the graphics card to run the 30" 😛.

I would also lose the benefit of watching something on one screen and have the other to do work/ browsing. It would be harder to fit the equivalent 24" movie on the 30" and have the space for the other windows. 2x 30" would be SWEET but that would require a lot of extra £££.

Koing
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top