Why do web pages waste so much space?

[Ichinisan]

1920x1200 on a 28" monitor. Browser maximized. No reason to make myself go blind with crazy high resolutions. Don't really see wasted horizontal space.

Hannspree/Hanns-G/Hannstar/I-Inc?

 

[Red Squirrel]

This is simply not true.

Just choose whatever you want or do you mean 2560x1440 isnt enough for you.

16:9 3840x2160 will soon be out there.

The highest I've seen available is 1920x1200, and that and only seems to be available in super huge monitors.

I would rather see 19" or maybe 21" 4:3 or 5:4 with a res like 1920x1600 (or whatever would fit that aspect ratio) but there's no such thing because they are all wide now so you lose out on vertical pixels. 19" seems like a perfect size, because then you can just have more monitors and more overall pixel estate in the smallest physical space. I have room for another 1280*1024 monitor on my desk. 3 of those would give me 3840*1024 of pixels using 120" inches of width of my desk (less depending how I place them as they would not be in a straight line). Can't beat that with widescreen without putting them vertical. There's another set of problems to deal with that such as depending on the driver supporting it.

But guess got to live with whatever's available. When these die I'll probably just get 2-3 of the highest res widescreens available and place them vertical.

 

[CZroe]

I like being able to put windows side-by-side and be productive.

 

[JimmiG]

I used to hate these kinds of layouts, but now I'm used to them. It's easy to get a nice overview of the page on a phone in portrait mode. On a computer, with a widescreen monitor, you don't have to keep the browser window maximized (unless you're on Windows 8 ), so you can resize it and fit other relevant windows on the sides.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

To a certain extent, wider is not better when it comes to articles. There is a reason most print media takes the forum of A4 portrait oriented paper. Imagine reading an article that spans an entire newspaper. F that.

Best setup for internet reading? ~22" 1680x1050 monitor, rotated 90 degrees. Buddy of mine has this setup. It is godly for forums, online articles, facebook, and webpages in general.

 

[shortylickens]

No they don't.

Do you know how to do anything besides troll?

 

[brianmanahan]

This will soon not be a problem when everybody will have 16:9.

Only wimps use 4:3 and 16:10 today.

If you live in present and future you buy 16:9.

if you ever used a software development IDE you would know that 16:10 is far better than 16:9

but im pretty sure you havent

 

[brianmanahan]

Do you know how to do anything besides troll?

come on, that's not trolling, it's the truth.

 

[alkemyst]

if you ever used a software development IDE you would know that 16:10 is far better than 16:9

but im pretty sure you havent

I haven't had much experience is seeing 16:9 is any better or worse than 16:10. I prefer 16:10.

also I have 4:3 laptops that are pretty much automotive in nature as many of the software is written for 4:3 screens...I am sure over the next 5 years that will change.

 

[Anubis]

4:3 is the best for computers, I don't get why widescreen took over. I will have lot of trouble replacing my screens when they break. Widescreen is basically 4:3 with part of the top removed. You loose lot of real estate. Only in the past few years have resolutions caught up to a point where a widescreen monitor can have as much real estate as what 4:3 had.

Widescreen makes sense for TVs, but not for computers. Most computer related work requires more vertical space. If ever I go wide screen I'll probably end up just flipping them all 90 degrees.

this, i run an ancient 4:3 at work because its better than using the 16:9 widescreen ones they give out now, if you code or do any serious work in a database program or excel the vert space is 10x more important.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I browse the web on a 19" 4:3 at home. Then I have a 32" 16:9 for movies/gaming. I think it's perfect as far as multimonitor setups go.

 

[aceO07]

Most widescreen displays isn't wide enough. It's not wide enough to truly fit 2 programs or browsers side by size without horizontal scrollbars.

If the screen was at least 2560 x1440 resolution, then yes it'd work.

 

[rh71]

Hannspree/Hanns-G/Hannstar/I-Inc?

yes, I guess the res is unique or you just guessed cause that's its max?

Previously had a 27" and only used 1600x___ ... I like to preserve my eyesight.

 

[Ichinisan]

1920x1200 on a 28" monitor. Browser maximized. No reason to make myself go blind with crazy high resolutions. Don't really see wasted horizontal space.

Hannspree/Hanns-G/Hannstar/I-Inc?

yes, I guess the res is unique or you just guessed cause that's its max?

Previously had a 27" and only used 1600x___ ... I like to preserve my eyesight.

16:10 1920x1200 is where it's at. :thumbsup:

Hannspree/Hanns-G/Hannstar/I-Inc are the same company, as far as I can tell. I have bought 3 of their monitors and TVs using this panel. They make the only 27.5" 1920x1200 panel (usually called "28-inch"). I heard Viewsonic used the same 27.5" panel in one of their models. They're all TN panels, but the price is awesome and matte finish is a huge plus.

I use a Hanns-G 28" monitor at work, a Hannspree 28" TV at home and another 28" Hannspree TV at my mother's home (all are 1920x1200 and used as computer monitors). I'm planning to get another for work (running dual monitors with mis-matched size/resolution is a huge pain).

I really wish someone would make a 30" 1920x1200 IPS panel because my eyes can't handle tiny text very well and adjusting Windows DPI settings always causes horrible software issues, making some applications impossible to use.

 

[0roo0roo]

iew 1080p-ish resolution on a 28" is pixel block city.
at that size it should be atleast 3mp or better yet 4mp, as said already, you can scale the gui on modern os. buying a large screen so you have big text where you can see every pixel does not make sense, you simply scale everything on a higher resolution monitor to your taste.

stuff on the new ipad isn't 4x smaller

 

[CZroe]

iew 1080p-ish resolution on a 28" is pixel block city.
at that size it should be atleast 3mp or better yet 4mp, as said already, you can scale the gui on modern os. buying a large screen so you have big text where you can see every pixel does not make sense, you simply scale everything on a higher resolution monitor to your taste.

stuff on the new ipad isn't 4x smaller

Windows has NEVER scaled properly and there's nothing wrong with being able to see pixels.

 

[0roo0roo]

Windows has NEVER scaled properly and there's nothing wrong with being able to see pixels.

theres everything wrong with seeing pixels

win vista/7/osx scale fine, if you need to you can even set minimum font size in browsers. the only reason to see pixels is if you are cheap or don't have the money for a better monitor

 

[Jodell88]

There's something called usability.

 

[masteryoda34]

 

[alkemyst]

theres everything wrong with seeing pixels

win vista/7/osx scale fine, if you need to you can even set minimum font size in browsers. the only reason to see pixels is if you are cheap or don't have the money for a better monitor

common people only think they have uber computers.

 

[Jodell88]

Most widescreen displays isn't wide enough. It's not wide enough to truly fit 2 programs or browsers side by size without horizontal scrollbars.

If the screen was at least 2560 x1440 resolution, then yes it'd work.

I must be doing it wrong then.

 

[0roo0roo]

common people only think they have uber computers.

http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/12/2943792/intel-retina-style-display-laptop-2013

 

[CZroe]

theres everything wrong with seeing pixels

win vista/7/osx scale fine, if you need to you can even set minimum font size in browsers. the only reason to see pixels is if you are cheap or don't have the money for a better monitor

You say that they "scale fine" except that they don't. It could have gone to a true vector window system with Vista, but it didn't. They could have made legacy apps which were incompatible with the new OS window rendering objects, resources, and methods, a simple ugly texture. They didn't. I guess you're OK with having to change your DPI settings because a particular application had a problem with it and the buttons or major portions of the GUI are pushed off the form and inaccessible. It's unavoidable. If you touch the DPI settings, you will encounter one of these incompatible apps unless you just don't even use the computer.

 

[Ichinisan]

iew 1080p-ish resolution on a 28" is pixel block city.
at that size it should be atleast 3mp or better yet 4mp, as said already, you can scale the gui on modern os. buying a large screen so you have big text where you can see every pixel does not make sense, you simply scale everything on a higher resolution monitor to your taste.

stuff on the new ipad isn't 4x smaller

1920x1200 means you can watch 1080p movies without non-integer scaling algorithms (which ultimately degrade picture quality).

Have you TRIED adjusting DPI in Windows? Believe me when I say I've experimented with it for months at a time. You *will* encounter serious application compatibility issues. I remember a BIOS updater for an optical drive and there was no way to see the options and there was no way to abort. Google Chrome shows your taskbar in full screen and the tabs don't scale. Other installers have buttons, checkboxes, and text labels that can't be seen or clicked.

My ultimate wish is for a 30" with 1920x1200 and IPS. Hell, pixels are FAR more dense than a 52" 1080p TV. It would be the perfect pixel density for me and my eyesight.

...this is coming from someone who already owns a 30" 2560x1600 monitor (Gateway XHD3000).

 

[Ichinisan]

theres everything wrong with seeing pixels

win vista/7/osx scale fine, if you need to you can even set minimum font size in browsers. the only reason to see pixels is if you are cheap or don't have the money for a better monitor

What planet are you from?