Why are 4:3 monitors disappearing?

[vj8usa]

Unless you're doing some comparison work as I said, there is no "importance" to it. I suppose there may be some convenience in having to click a mouse or press a key 50% fewer times, but otherwise, its a non-issue.

Comparison work? 90% of the time I'm typing something up in a word processor, I've got a pdf of an article or my web browser open in the other half of my screen to look up information/put down references/etc. I almost never have to write something up that doesn't use outside information in some form.

 

[tcsenter]

Plagiarism excepted, of course. I use reference material, too, but if you're taking so much from the reference that you need it on the same screen at all times as though you're transcribing or copying, then you probably should just read the reference material all the way through a few times, then try to write on it.

 

[Zargon]

-Damn straight. I don't understand why, with accelerometers being used in phones and other mobile devices to switch between landscape and portrait, we don't have a nice widescreen monitor to do this (with the requisite stand etc).

"But it doesn't have enough vertical space!" rotate the monitor to portrait and you'll have more vertical space than you'd know what to do with.

"OMG but now I can't enjoy my movies or games!" Ok rotate it back to landscape.

Wow I should go draft a poorly written, vague and confusing but just barely enforcable patent for this technology!

viewsonic has been making them for years with pivot software

but even without, on board nvida and ati stuffr has suppported rotation right a right click on desktop in alot of cases

 

[NoQuarter]

You should compare screen real estate based off equivalent priced panels not just the diagonal of the monitors, obviously a 19" 5:4 has more actual display than a 19" 16:9, but a 19" 5:4 costs about the same as a 23" 16:9 (now at least). It's not like they saved money by switching to 19" 16:9 screens, those 19" 16:9 monitors just replaced the 17" 5:4 market. I don't think anyone was ever confused that a 19" wide should be the same size as a 19" square..

I'm also gonna say anyone who doesn't see the advantage of horizontal workspace just for *stuff* is probably not willing to even try it to see why people like it. Just being able to have a reference next to the document you're working on instead of having to alt-tab back and forth is incredibly useful. And reference doesn't just mean copy-pasting Wikipedia.. could be anything, even some calculations you've worked out, some data table, whatever.

 

[tcsenter]

I'm also gonna say anyone who doesn't see the advantage of horizontal workspace just for *stuff* is probably not willing to even try it to see why people like it.

Oh I'd argue the opposite is true. The people who are complaining are those who have tried to use a widescreen but it didn't fit their work style and the type of work they do. The ones denying there are any types of work that are better suited to 4:3 are the widescreen zealots.

 

[NoQuarter]

Oh I'd argue the opposite is true. The people who are complaining are those who have tried to use a widescreen but it didn't fit their work style and the type of work they do. The ones denying there are any types of work that are better suited to 4:3 are the widescreen zealots.

But given the cost of current monitors you can get a 16:10 screen with the same vertical real estate as a 5:4 or 4:3 monitor for the same price.. so if you don't want the extra width you could just ignore that (run everything in window, even sized to 4:3 if you like, or even set the resolution to 1600x1200 instead of 1920x1200 - still cheaper than a 1600x1200 monitor).

If you could get more vert real estate for the same price by going 4:3 I'd agree but you can't anymore.. but I still don't see how, if you prefer the apps in a square window, you can't just make the window square (which is actually what most people do) and then have side real estate for seeing background windows or calculator or whatever.. which is pretty much the reason it's advantageous. Noone runs apps maximized on a widescreen..

 

[tcsenter]

Its true, you can just buy a widescreen that is much huger than you need in order to get the same vertical space.

 

[NoQuarter]

Ok I guess if you have space concerns or are some other aversion to wastefulness it's a good point

 

[crisium]

Plagiarism excepted, of course. I use reference material, too, but if you're taking so much from the reference that you need it on the same screen at all times as though you're transcribing or copying, then you probably should just read the reference material all the way through a few times, then try to write on it.

Stop being so shortsighted, please. As another poster said, some people have different priorities and work differently then you. Give it a rest. There is great convenience in having two programs running side-by-side thanks to the wonders of wide screen. You can choose to ignore it, but stop trying to rationalize your way as the only way by attacking the way other people do work.

 

[tcsenter]

Conversely, one could also buy a massive 4:3 to get their horizontal pixels (if they were available).

 

[zerocool84]

My 19" 5:4 monitor and 23" 16:9 are the same height wise. I prefer the 23" 16:9 in all situations. There's no reason to go back.

 

[blanketyblank]

I'm pretty sure the reason has to do with pixel density and marketing. Increasing pixel density is expensive so there's a limit to what manufactueres can do. They can either sell you a 4:3 at 20" or a 16:9 at 22" with the same pixel density.

1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels crammed into 16 x 12 = 192 square inches (20") so you get 10000 pixels per square inch.

With widescreen you get: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 within a (22") a lot harder to calculate but should be roughly 19.18 x 10.79 = 206.95 square inches so you get 10019 pixels per square inch.

As such if both cost the same to manufacture since larger panels can sell for higher prices as most consumers care about the number of inches more than the resolution it just makes more sense to sell 22" or larger panels. Also it decreases the number of pixel warranty returns since the wider the screen the more chance that dead pixels are found in an area to the side and not in the central viewing area.

So basically it's much like why TN panels have dominated over IPS and VA. It's cheaper to produce and it's easier to market since response time is an easy number to throw around.
Also 1920 x 1080 is relatively new and they have been selling 1680 x 1050 panels at 22" for a while at higher cost than 20" panels. This just makes them even more profitable since the low pixel density increases their margins by a lot.

 

[0roo0roo]

a valid concern when wide screen meant 19" or less. too short.
but at 24" the idea that 4:3 would be better is mostly silly.

 

[0roo0roo]

I'm pretty sure the reason has to do with pixel density and marketing. Increasing pixel density is expensive so there's a limit to what manufactueres can do. They can either sell you a 4:3 at 20" or a 16:9 at 22" with the same pixel density.

1600 x 1200 = 1,920,000 pixels crammed into 16 x 12 = 192 square inches (20") so you get 10000 pixels per square inch.

With widescreen you get: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 within a (22") a lot harder to calculate but should be roughly 19.18 x 10.79 = 206.95 square inches so you get 10019 pixels per square inch.

As such if both cost the same to manufacture since larger panels can sell for higher prices as most consumers care about the number of inches more than the resolution it just makes more sense to sell 22" or larger panels. Also it decreases the number of pixel warranty returns since the wider the screen the more chance that dead pixels are found in an area to the side and not in the central viewing area.

So basically it's much like why TN panels have dominated over IPS and VA. It's cheaper to produce and it's easier to market since response time is an easy number to throw around.

sorta... if it costs too much to increase pixel density it just pushes people to buy the bigger screen instead. since both dpi and screen size are not overly generous at cheap prices, people will go for screen size when minimum dpi is met. only in laptops where screen size is constrained is it worth it to increase dpi. when 24-30" size becomes cheap only then will panel tech/res start to matter more.

cost depends on how many screens can be cut from a piece of glass. and they are optimized for wide screens these days.

and of course consumers dual use to play video these days. takes 27" crt to match a 24" 16:9 showing 16:9.

 

[0roo0roo]

Plagiarism excepted, of course. I use reference material, too, but if you're taking so much from the reference that you need it on the same screen at all times as though you're transcribing or copying, then you probably should just read the reference material all the way through a few times, then try to write on it.

i guess you like having one of those tiny swing over lap desks found in some schools

who needs anything more!

 

[blanketyblank]

sorta... if it costs too much to increase pixel density it just pushes people to buy the bigger screen instead. since both dpi and screen size are not overly generous at cheap prices, people will go for screen size when minimum dpi is met. only in laptops where screen size is constrained is it worth it to increase dpi. when 24-30" size becomes cheap only then will panel tech/res start to matter more.

cost depends on how many screens can be cut from a piece of glass. and they are optimized for wide screens these days.

and of course consumers dual use to play video these days. takes 27" crt to match a 24" 16:9 showing 16:9.

That's basically what I'm saying. Although I think your how many screens can be cut from a piece of glass is bit simplified. Sure you can cut less screens if you use larger screen size, but you can also price them higher. 25" monitor costs more than 22" even if they have the same resolution. It also doesn't account for defect rate which is reflected in the DPI. That is the higher the DPI the greater the chance of defects.

Most people have been satisfied with the DPI in 20" LCDs with 1600 x 1200. Companies can get essentially the same DPI with a larger 22" screen and sell it more easily and usually at a higher cost. Since the DPI is the same and the panel is only marginally larger the company has essentially the same manufacturing cost. Historically however they have been making 1680 x 1050 panels which have a lower DPI and thus a lower manufacturing cost which makes the proposition even better.
Unfortunately few consumers care about DPI and are getting larger and larger monitors with worse and worse DPI. Otherwise we'd be seeing more widescreen panels with a DPI like my old though still great SGI 1600sw with 1600x1024 pixels within a 17.3" screen.

 

[Phil1977]

A 20" 4:3 1600 x 1200 has a pixel pitch of 0.255 mm.

A 21.5" 1920 x 1050 has a pixel pitch of 0.248 mm.

And 21.5" Full HDs are very cheap. So cheap doesn't mean you get a bad pixel pitch... In this case the cheap 21.5" actually has a better pixel pitch!

 

[blanketyblank]

A 20" 4:3 1600 x 1200 has a pixel pitch of 0.255 mm.

A 21.5" 1920 x 1050 has a pixel pitch of 0.248 mm.

And 21.5" Full HDs are very cheap. So cheap doesn't mean you get a bad pixel pitch... In this case the cheap 21.5" actually has a better pixel pitch!

It's not a fair comparison to do a price comparison now since 20" monitors are in short supply (are they still being produced?) thus increasing their prices while 21.5" and larger panels are being mass produced thus decreasing their prices. Also since 20" monitors are old tech (or business only tech) they are more likely to use pricier panels in general like VAs.

Anyways it is a valid point that pixel pitch and manufacturing practices are improving as they are starting to sell smaller panels with full HD resolution. However my reasoning is based on historic practice (when pixel pitch was less) and the general idea is still valid, that at about an equivalent pixel pitch and resolution the 16:9 panels would have a greater diagonal screen size than a 4:3.

 

[DominionSeraph]

As another poster said, some people have different priorities and work differently then you. Give it a rest. There is great convenience in having two programs running side-by-side thanks to the wonders of wide screen.

A niche application doesn't answer the question. Use your brain for something other than defensiveness.

My dad just got a netbook. It is, of course, widescreen. The windows taskbar and app menu bar take up a good 1/3rd of his vertical real estate.

Noone

This isn't a word.

 

[waffleironhead]

Having multiple pages side by side is more common and quite a bit more useful than increased vertical. Have you ever seen someone stack 4 screens on top of each other? Mostly I just see 4 screens across a desk on the horizontal. The same reason desktops are wider than they are deep, most people prefer to put things side by side rather than above and below.

 

[gorobei]

motherglass(the large substrate used to make panels) can be cut into more panels if the aspect ratio is WS. 4:3 and the rest result in far fewer panels/monitors to sell, so WS is worth far more to the manufacturers as it allows them to sell more monitors for the same initial cost.(ignoring frames and circuitry)

 

[Phil1977]

My dad just got a netbook. It is, of course, widescreen. The windows taskbar and app menu bar take up a good 1/3rd of his vertical real estate.

Well the taskbar can be moved to the left or right side...

Depending on the application you can sometimes move the app bar as well. IE has a fullscreen mode as well.

The problem with netbooks is not size and aspect ratio but low resolution.

If it had a 800 x 600 screen would that be better? Surely not. I pick 1024 x 600 over 800 x 600 any day.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If it had a 800 x 600 screen would that be better? Surely not. I pick 1024 x 600 over 800 x 600 any day.

And I'd pick 1024x768 over 1024x600.

 

[NoQuarter]

Noone

This isn't a word.

Was totally talking about Peter Noone, what did you think I meant?

 

[Phil1977]

And I'd pick 1024x768 over 1024x600.

Well of course, but then your dad shouldn't have bought a netbook.

He should have bought a CULV product.

They have a 11" screen with 1366 x 768 resolution.

Netbooks are restricted in what resolution they can have...