• 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.

My CRT monitor is dying...

T

Trente

Golden Member
Yesterday it refused to power up (made a weird "electrical" sound from the back over and over again) but today it seems to be fine; I realize it is signaling me something and that it is time to replace it.

I have narrowed my options down to two:

Dell 2007 20.1" - either the regular flat panel or the widescreen version.

The display device has always been the oldest component in my systems and so the decision is even harder than it might seem. I can't make up my mind... Is widescreen the way to go or not?

Those of you who have chosen the widescreen path, can you share your experiences please? What were your considerations? Would you make the same decision now?

I'd also like to hear those who have decided on a 4:3 display in this day and age.

Thanks.
 
If you're a gamer, I'd stay away from widescreen. A lot of games don't work with the 16:9 ratio. So, they stretch the image to fit. It looks awful. I was fixing my sister-in-laws laptop that had a widscreen. The only thing that looked good was movies on it.
 
Originally posted by: Nacelle
If you're a gamer, I'd stay away from widescreen. A lot of games don't work with the 16:9 ratio. So, they stretch the image to fit. It looks awful. I was fixing my sister-in-laws laptop that had a widscreen. The only thing that looked good was movies on it.
Click to expand...

As a gamer I love WS gaming on WS LCD,I could never go back to boring old 4:3 ,as to being stretched its not as bad as some people think,also go here for WS res tweaks for most games. .


A lot of new games support WS now anyway,even older games you can try the above link,personally I run most of my games in WS mode and love it,WS is the future for gaming.I forgot to say some LCDs do 1:1 scaling too ,also 1:1scaling can be done in Nvidia CP with some games as well.

Stalker will never look or feel the same in 4:3 format as it does in 16:10 🙂.
 
I used to game quite a bit, but hardly ever these days and in the near future I probably won't have time for a hasty gameplay either (two words: Electrical Engineering).
 
I would only consider WS for gaming. For engineering and all other work, I would definitely recommend the non-WS. I find the extra height far more valuable than the relatively useless added width of the WS.

I think the 2007FP is supposed to be very good. I have an older 2001FP and it is fantastic.
 
I like widescreen, it was wierd at first, but I quickly got used to the extra space (moved from 1600x1200 to 1920x1200).

1. Most monitors have a "To scale" feature so that it doesnt stretch the image and make it distorted

2. Newer games support widescreen, and it seems more "natural" to me.

3. If you like the extra space at the sides for your instant chat buddy list, etc.

4. Extra columns if you are a MS Excel or similar program user is nice.

5. Extra space for photoshop side bars.


For me, I dont see any reason to go 4:3 anymore. In fact, it seems very odd to me when I use 4:3 screens.
 
Some thing to Consider:

If a PC game is labeled as "Games for Windows" it will have widescreen support

I think just about all PC games that come out in the future will be Labeled as a Games for Windows because the game devoloper community has embraced the new standard for PC games

Anywho, I am also wondering what monitor that runs at 1680x1050
 
Some of these responses reflect a little confusion. First, not all video content supports 16:10 display modes (most, maybe all, computer monitors are 16:10, not 16:9), but there is no reason that 4:3 output has to be stretched on 16:10 displays. You display the 1600 x 1200, or whatever, centered and it looks fine. If the unused real estate on either side bothers you more than the distorted image, then stretch it.

I don't understand a previous poster's comment on using widescreen outside of games, specifically preferring added height. What added height? If I rotate my 2405 into portrait mode I think it is still as wide as my old 19" CRT, and there's added height for you 🙂. The main point that widescreen is only useful for gaming is the real thing I object to. Widescreen is useful for everything. I don't think I could ever work on documents again on a small, square display.
 
Choosing between WS and 4:3 is largely personal preference. I don't necessarily prefer the 4:3 ratio, but I do prefer the size of the 20.1" 4:3 screens over the 20.1" WS. If you compare the actual inches of the physical screens, the 20.1" 4:3 screens have 13% more height, but only 5% less width than 20.1" WS. Comparing the number of pixels you get, 1200 vertical pixels are 14% greater than 1050 vertical pixels, while 1680 pixels are only 5% greater than 1600 pixels. I think the 20.1" WS add too little width and cut too much height when compared to their 4:3 counterparts.

I borrowed a 20.1" WS from work for a weekend and found the screen to be too short physically and to have too few vertical pixels for my tastes. I definitely preferred it to my 19" CRT, but I prefer my 20.1" at 1600x1200 MUCH more (I purchased it after testing the WS monitor). 22" WS were pretty much non-existent a year ago, so that wasn't an option for me. While this would add more physical height to the screen, I'd still be missing 150 vertical pixels.

However, I will probably jump to a 24" WS at 1920x1200 with my next monitor. It will still have enough vertical pixels but will also have the advantages of the WS. This will be a few years down the road, so by then I would expect all games to support the WS resolutions.
 
Originally posted by: lamere
widescreen is the way to go
Click to expand...

For desktop work I'm a little skeptical. I would prefer two 4:3/5:4 displays side-by-side than a single 16:10 one myself. It's nice to be able to play a game on one monitor and have windows open on the other, or to maximize a program to just one display. But it depends on how you use your PC.

A widescreen display in portrait mode can be really useful if you do graphical layout; you can see a whole page 8.5"x11" page aligned vertically. If you do something like HD video editing (where you frequently work with 16:9 material), a widescreen display makes a lot of sense.

If you watch lots of movies or HDTV content on your PC, a widescreen monitor is beneficial.

For gaming -- some people prefer having a wider AR display for FPS games (assuming, of course, that the games you play support it, but many newer ones do to some extent.) If you play other kinds of games (such as real-time strategy), consider that a 20"/21" 4:3 LCD has significantly more surface area than a 20" widescreen. 24" widescreens solve that problem, but cost more. 😛
 
For 20", I prefer 4:3 for work, and 16:10 for multimedia. If I had to choose one for all things, 4:3 would be it.

The reasons are pretty much a mix of what has been mentioned- more total pixels, finding the extra vertical resolution to be more useful than the extra horizontal resolution, and being more flexible if moving to dual displays later on.

I use a 2005FPW as my primary display in lab only because I got it for a great price. When working with large amounts of data, I find myself missing the vertical resolution of a 4:3 20" display far more often than I find the extra 80 horizontal pixels of the 16:10 to be useful. While it is true that a 20" 16:10 allows you to open more apps side-by-side, I feel that 1680 pixels is just too cramped to do this comfortably- if you really need to do this, just go all-out and purchase a 24" 1920x1200 display, or buy a 20" 4:3 right now and save up for a second 4:3 down the road.

When going from my 2405FPW to my 2007FP, I feel much less restricted than when going to the 2405FPW-->2005FPW. I say this based upon my experience with running the 2405 side-by side with the 2007FP and the 2005FPW.

A 2007FP is not that far from a 2407 these days price-wise, assuming you are buying new from Dell- if this will be your primary display for years to come, and you do a lot of work, swallowing the extra cost now would be a wise long-term decision.
 
I used 4:3 CRT's up until last month when I picked up a Dell 2407WFP on sale, I love it and would never go back. It's big enough that I usually have a Firefox window taking up half the screen and MSN/mIRC/Word/whatever on the other half.

As for gaming, most modern games support 16:10 (and I guess they will have to for Games for Windows, thanks for the heads up, great news!). If they don't just use 1:1 pixel mapping. Nvidia finally released a hotfix for this issue (G80 flat panel scaling in Win XP) so now I run old games at 1600x1200 with black bars on the side.
 
Widescreen is better for multimedia/games and certain work applications. The first two are pretty self-explanatory or have been talked to death already. However, work is a bit more complicated. While it's nice to run two windows side by side on a single screen, there is a small disadvantage in the vertical. Although, there is only a potential advantage of an extra 120 (1080 vs. 1200) pixels, it could still be better for work like coding. Portrait mode really isn't workable as it is a bit too tall to be useful if running a 24".

Personally, I'll never go back to 4:3 with my 24" WS. No more window shifting every 2 seconds when using Excel, Word and help/browser applications. There is enough horiztonal real estate to use long spreadsheets, run two word files side by side for comparison, etc. Can probably do the same with dual monitors, but why use two when one can do it🙂.
 
Personally, I'll never go back to 4:3 with my 24" WS. No more window shifting every 2 seconds when using Excel, Word and help/browser applications. There is enough horiztonal real estate to use long spreadsheets, run two word files side by side for comparison, etc. Can probably do the same with dual monitors, but why use two when one can do it.
Click to expand...

1) You can maximize an application into just one monitor. I find this handy, although others may not agree.

2) You can run a fullscreen application on one display and be able to view things on the other one. If your games (or other 3D apps) can't run in a windowed mode (or don't perform well like that) you have to alt-tab out of them to see anything else if you have one big monitor.

3) 3200x1200 is significantly wider than 1920x1200. Of course, two 20" 4:3 LCDs together will cost more than one 24" widescreen. If you have two 19" widescreens the size (and cost) is closer.

Like I said before, a lot depends on how you use your PC. 24" widescreen LCDs are very nice, though... I would certainly consider one as a primary display.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top