WideScreen Displays

[darkswordsman17]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: darkswordsman17

Originally posted by: fbrdphreak
Not at all, although I do wish it was 1920x1200 on a 20" instead of 1680x1050. I live for pixels...

I'm honestly surprised there has not been a company that has done this. In laptops, you can find LCDs from 15.4" all the way to probably 20" now that have 1920x1200 resolution. It seems that there would be at least a niche market for displays like those on the desktop, but yet no one offers anything of the sort. Displays are an odd market to be sure. For instance, I'm surprised Dell hasn't released a widescreen 19" monitor yet. Everyone else and their dog has, but not Dell, the leader in LCD sales.

seems for the most part price is actually driven by pixels rather than vert. screen size, at least for desktops (hence only 1680x1050 on 20/21" WS & 1440x900 on 19"). they keep the res higher to keep the panel price lower.

Oh, I'm sure it is a big part of the reason. However, I would imagine that some people would be willing to pay more for higher resolution. Just like there are some willing to pay $650-700 for the NEC 20", I think there would be people who would pay to get 1920x1200.

I wish there was a little more customization, where you could get a higher or maybe even lower resolution and choose a glossy or non-glossy screen, all without having to go with an entirely different monitor.

 

[Viper GTS]

Let me preface this by saying I am currently using widescreen displays (2 x 24" FW-900s). Previous to these I had two 21" Trinitrons.

Widescreen only makes sense in the large display market, currently the 24+ inch range where there is no sacrifice in vertical height or resolution, & the extra width is a welcome bonus. Not to mention that there's nothing else available in that size range so widescreen is a given.

All you people fawning over your 20" 16:10 displays are missing out on a lot of screen real estate (both physical and pixel).

Viper GTS

 

[Nightmare225]

A lot of us might not have room for huge monitors that cost that much...

 

[Raduque]

Originally posted by: Nightmare225
A lot of us might not have room for huge monitors that cost that much...

Or the budget for them.

 

[Viper GTS]

Space & budget constraints are quite valid, but don't try to push the "Widescreen is the superior display ratio" crap if that was your purchasing criteria.

In my case my two 24" Trinitrons TOGETHER cost less than people seem to be willing to spend on 20" 1680x1050 displays.

Yes, they take up a ton of space & weigh nearly 100 lbs apiece. But they were not expensive by any stretch.

Viper GTS

 

[MercenaryForHire]

*hugs his widescreen HDTV*

Hell no.

- M4H

 

[Check]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Widescreen only makes sense in the large display market, currently the 24+ inch range where there is no sacrifice in vertical height or resolution, & the extra width is a welcome bonus. Not to mention that there's nothing else available in that size range so widescreen is a given.

All you people fawning over your 20" 16:10 displays are missing out on a lot of screen real estate (both physical and pixel).

Viper GTS

This is the exact reason why I'm most likely going with a Dell 20inch 4:3 (1600x1200) instead of the widescreen which is 1680x1250. I can't justify paying more than $800 on a Dell 24 inch

 

[nitromullet]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Let me preface this by saying I am currently using widescreen displays (2 x 24" FW-900s). Previous to these I had two 21" Trinitrons.

Widescreen only makes sense in the large display market, currently the 24+ inch range where there is no sacrifice in vertical height or resolution, & the extra width is a welcome bonus. Not to mention that there's nothing else available in that size range so widescreen is a given.

All you people fawning over your 20" 16:10 displays are missing out on a lot of screen real estate (both physical and pixel).

Viper GTS

I went from a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, and I still like my 20" 1680x1050 LCD better. At the time I bought my Dell 2005FPW the 2001FP was the exact same price, but I opted for the 2005FPW. I simply don't need/miss the vertical space, and I appreciate the 16:10 aspect ratio. The 20" 1680x1050 display lets me enjoy the aspect ratio that I want while still being able to push every game with a single high end graphics card. Sure, a 24" or 30" LCD would be nice, but that is a serious commitment in terms of present and future video cards if you want to play games.

edit: I actually played HL2 at 1600x900 on my CRT for a few weeks before I got my LCD, and I even liked that better then 1600x1200.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: Raduque
I think I would only switch back because not all games support widescreen resolutions, and my display stretches, and I can't figure out how to make it un-stretch.

depends on the monitor. also there are settings in the driver CP which allow you to do that. nvidia's CP has such a settings. ATI does also, but there seems to be some bugs...

Originally posted by: nitromullet

Originally posted by: Viper GTS
Let me preface this by saying I am currently using widescreen displays (2 x 24" FW-900s). Previous to these I had two 21" Trinitrons.

Widescreen only makes sense in the large display market, currently the 24+ inch range where there is no sacrifice in vertical height or resolution, & the extra width is a welcome bonus. Not to mention that there's nothing else available in that size range so widescreen is a given.

All you people fawning over your 20" 16:10 displays are missing out on a lot of screen real estate (both physical and pixel).

Viper GTS

I went from a 21" 1600x1200 CRT, and I still like my 20" 1680x1050 LCD better. At the time I bought my Dell 2005FPW the 2001FP was the exact same price, but I opted for the 2005FPW. I simply don't need/miss the vertical space, and I appreciate the 16:10 aspect ratio. The 20" 1680x1050 display lets me enjoy the aspect ratio that I want while still being able to push every game with a single high end graphics card. Sure, a 24" or 30" LCD would be nice, but that is a serious commitment in terms of present and future video cards if you want to play games.

edit: I actually played HL2 at 1600x900 on my CRT for a few weeks before I got my LCD, and I even liked that better then 1600x1200.

well, that and the fact that if you really need the vertical space, all you need to do is rotate the screen 90 degrees

i'd be willing to bet the vast majority (in the realm of 90% + ) of widescreen users own 19-21" displays for their desktop PC's, not 24" +

 

[SynthDude2001]

I owned a 22" 4:3 CRT (NEC 2141SB-BK) before I moved to a 2005FPW, and I have no regrets about the change. I very much prefer widescreen...for games, for DVD's, for HDTV, etc. I don't notice myself missing any vertical space or resolution at all.

 

[PhoenixOrion]

Originally posted by: Unkno
never once had buyer's remorse with my widescreen

ditto.

 

[JBT]

Not a chance would this puppy go back.

 

[n7]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: n7
No.

I have two 20" 1600x1200 displays, & i wouldn't want them to be widescreen.

Maybe in the future i'll consider a 23"+ 1920x1200 display, but i refuse to buy a WS with a lower resolution than that, as you sacrifice far too much height otherwise.

but do you actually own a widescreen? and if so, would you sell it to go back to a 4:3 display? i ask this as my observation has been most people who say negatvie things about WS format are those who don't actually have one.

so to see if this is actually the case, i'm polling WS users to see how many would actually go back to the old 4:3 ratio displays.

No i do not own a widescreen.
I don't need to though.

I work in retail, so pardon me, but i have used many many widescreen monitors, everything from 1280x768 to 1920x1200.
(Haven't used above 1920x1200 yet.)

So i'd say i have a little better perspective than many here when i say i have no desire to own a WS lower than 1920x1200.

 

[CaiNaM]

Originally posted by: n7

Originally posted by: CaiNaM

Originally posted by: n7
No.

I have two 20" 1600x1200 displays, & i wouldn't want them to be widescreen.

Maybe in the future i'll consider a 23"+ 1920x1200 display, but i refuse to buy a WS with a lower resolution than that, as you sacrifice far too much height otherwise.

but do you actually own a widescreen? and if so, would you sell it to go back to a 4:3 display? i ask this as my observation has been most people who say negatvie things about WS format are those who don't actually have one.

so to see if this is actually the case, i'm polling WS users to see how many would actually go back to the old 4:3 ratio displays.

No i do not own a widescreen.
I don't need to though.

I work in retail, so pardon me, but i have used many many widescreen monitors, everything from 1280x768 to 1920x1200.
(Haven't used above 1920x1200 yet.)

So i'd say i have a little better perspective than many here when i say i have no desire to own a WS lower than 1920x1200.

heh.. retail what? i'm not sure i should pardon you for that

 

[Fraggable]

Touch my widescreen, I hurt you.

19" WS on my desktop, 17" WS on my laptop. Both at 1440 X 900.

I can force BF2 to 1440 X 900, and Source games run at that res, so I'm happy. Future games will have to be designed to work at widescreen res, maybe even designed and coded to work best with it.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Originally posted by: CaiNaM
so to see if my perception is justified, i'm polling WS users to see how many, if given the opportunity would actually go back to the old 4:3 ratio displays.

Considering that LCDs are taking over the market, and 17-19" are 5:4, I'd almost say that it would be the new standard vs. 4:3.

Of course now we're finally seeing some 16:10 19"ers out there...

 

[Ackmed]

Originally posted by: Viper GTS


All you people fawning over your 20" 16:10 displays are missing out on a lot of screen real estate (both physical and pixel).

Viper GTS

Not true for games. You get more game, in a game that truely supports WS.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: Ned Flanders
Hell no my man! Widescreen is the future and it looks great!

 

[CaiNaM]

well, it appears to be pretty overwhelming that those who own widescreen lcd's certainly don't regret getting them.

 

[Ackmed]

Nope. Ive said it before, I think the emergence of WS, and SLI in early 05' was the two best things that happend for gamers hardware wise in a long time. WS gives you more game, with the way its supposed to be, and SLI (and now CF) gives you better performance for the larger LCD's, and the WS res.

 

[ArchAngel777]

Originally posted by: Ackmed
Nope. Ive said it before, I think the emergence of WS, and SLI in early 05' was the two best things that happend for gamers hardware wise in a long time. WS gives you more game, with the way its supposed to be, and SLI (and now CF) gives you better performance for the larger LCD's, and the WS res.

Totally agree. I cannot stand 4:3 aspect ratios any longer and 5:4 is absolutely horrid... Talk about going in the wong direction! Lol, go from 4:3 to an even MORE square 5:4 that many of these LCDs have these days.

 

[AllGamer]

i've got a Dual Wide screen LCD, and it's horrible for most games

all it does is stretch out the game, and it makes it totally unbeable

so definitely going back to 4:3

 

[neutralizer]

I went from a really good 22" CRT to a 20" widescreen LCD. OMG, best thing I've ever done. It's absolutely beautiful.

Once you go wide, you can't ever go back.

 

[R3MF]

couldn't live without mine.

 

[videopho]

WIDESCREEN RULES