Whats the point of widescreen?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
Originally posted by: Trevelyan
[

Turn a widescreen monitor sideways, and its the best for coding.

Nope, then there's no enough height. 3:4 might be good sideways, but 9:16 is definitely not.
 

postmortemIA

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2006
7,721
40
91
Originally posted by: dgevert
Originally posted by: Job
That's BS tho - widescreen monitors are physically smaller than their standard counterparts - only bigger if what you're watching is without black bars. Went into a electronics store today just to look at TVs - the 20" widescreens seem so small compared to the 20" 4:3 screens - far less visually imposing.

Some people will never learn...you're one of those idiots who buys DVDs in "fullscreen" aren't you?

One word that won't ever be used to describe my 24" LCD is "small."

Unlike your penii :D

 

TheRyuu

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2005
5,479
14
81
Think about it this way, when you game is the whole sceen more up and down or side to side.

Most of the action takes place either on either side but not really that much above which is why widescreen IS BETTER.
 

Job

Senior member
Jan 16, 2006
283
0
0
Originally posted by: dgevert
Originally posted by: Job
That's BS tho - widescreen monitors are physically smaller than their standard counterparts - only bigger if what you're watching is without black bars. Went into a electronics store today just to look at TVs - the 20" widescreens seem so small compared to the 20" 4:3 screens - far less visually imposing.

Some people will never learn...you're one of those idiots who buys DVDs in "fullscreen" aren't you?q]

Good God no! Why would anyone do that? That's just wrong. WS screens are smaller -

20" WS = roughly 1645cm2

20" FS = roughly 2162cm2

Get a 20" WS and a 20" FS next to each other. 20" WS is smaller. Your 24" screen would be even bigger if it were FS and I wouldn't say either were small
 

dgevert

Senior member
Dec 6, 2004
362
0
0
20" 4:3 = 1600x1200
24" 16:9 = 1920x1200

Making the 24" the widescreen equivalent of 20"...making the 20" 4:3 seem small.
 

Job

Senior member
Jan 16, 2006
283
0
0
oh yeah, definitely, but I'm comparing 20" to 20" cos I cnt afford a 24" one :(
 

Steve

Lifer
May 2, 2004
15,945
11
81
Originally posted by: dgevert
20" 4:3 = 1600x1200
24" 16:9 = 1920x1200

Making the 24" the widescreen equivalent of 20"...making the 20" 4:3 seem small.

1920x1200 = 16:10
1920x1080 = 16:9
 

dcr

Member
Jul 25, 2006
90
0
0
I used to run a 17" Sony CRT and I recently upgraded to a 21" FPD2185W Widescreen LCD from Gateway.

My entire PC experience has been changed by the 1680X1050 resolution, and I would never go back to anything smaller in screen size, nor lower in resolution.

I can fit all of my toolbars on the screen in WoW with no issues, and I can see more of the play field than I could in the past. Did you know the bottom toolbars have little dragon "bookends" that you can't see with 4:3?

I also use Photoshop, and this monitor is a champ for this application. I can see many more layers than before and everything looks crisp and clean.

Movies...that is obvious.

The transition to a widescreen monitor was easy for me because I have a 46" Widescreen TV as well, and I just bought the wife a 19" Widescreen LCD for her PC, so I have moved away from 4:3 in my home completely.