Widescreen vs 4:3..Just got VX1935WM hard getting used to it

[nealh]

Well I picked up a Viewsonic VX1935WM at costco for $199-$30 instant coupon...great deal

The Monitor looks good as compared to my 1-2yr old Samsung 930B

The resolution on this monitor is 1440x 900 ..the shorten vertical is really hard to get used too, IMHO

For the pice this is an unbeatable deal...but I am thinking I need to get the Samsung 932B for $200 instead

If the VX2035WM was cheaper than $300-$50MIR..ie $250 with no rebate I would buy that monitor

I am primarily going to use this for text work, ie Word 2003/2007..documents and I am having really trouble after just a few hrs with is monitor

 

[n7]

WS is overrated :evil:

I honestly don't think WS is ideal till you get to 1920x1200 or higher.

/blatant flame against the WS fanbois :evil:

 

[Bateluer]

Originally posted by: n7
I honestly don't think WS is ideal till you get to 1920x1200 or higher.

1920x1200 is even nicer, but 1680x1050 is almost as good. 1440x900 doesn't really offer much advantage though.

I just finished writing a research paper on my 1680x1050 WS panel in which I had a browser and Word 2007 open, both large enough for me to see the text on both and write the paper with ease.

Hopefully, next month, I'll be stepping up to a 24in panel though. Until then, I'll just have to dream of it. :beer:

 

[n7]

One thing i dislike is how in the case of 20-22" WS vs. standard & also 19: WS vs. standard, you lose with WS in each situation.

You lose alot of vertical viewing areas, & also in overall pixels.

19" 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels
19" WS 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

20" 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
20/22" WS 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

 

[soydios]

1680x1050 is wide enough to have 2 word documents open side-by-side. Add Google Toolbar to one side of your screen, and you have a nice setup. Gaming in widescreen is a real treat, though.

 

[Mem]

Originally posted by: n7
One thing i dislike is how in the case of 20-22" WS vs. standard & also 19: WS vs. standard, you lose with WS in each situation.

You lose alot of vertical viewing areas, & also in overall pixels.

19" 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels
19" WS 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

20" 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
20/22" WS 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

It's all in your mind,just move the LCD nearer thats what I did when I went from 20" CRT to 20" LCD WS.
Besides now you can get a 22" WS LCD cheap nowadays,unless you want a quality IPS/ MVA 8 bit panel.

Personally I could never go back to a boring 4:3 or 5:4 screen.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: n7
One thing i dislike is how in the case of 20-22" WS vs. standard & also 19: WS vs. standard, you lose with WS in each situation.

You lose alot of vertical viewing areas, & also in overall pixels.

19" 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels
19" WS 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

20" 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
20/22" WS 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

the vertical loss is a problem for me..

 

[Bateluer]

I wouldn't buy a 22in WS panel myself. They usually have the same resolution as a 20in WS panel, 1680x1050, and usually carry a higher price tag.

Same with 17 and 19in LCDs, same 1280x1024 resolution. Granted, there are other specs to look at than just the resolution, but if I'm going to buy a bigger panel, I want it to bigger in both ways.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
I wouldn't buy a 22in WS panel myself. They usually have the same resolution as a 20in WS panel, 1680x1050, and usually carry a higher price tag.

Same with 17 and 19in LCDs, same 1280x1024 resolution. Granted, there are other specs to look at than just the resolution, but if I'm going to buy a bigger panel, I want it to bigger in both ways.

I agree although I do find a 19in with 1280x1024 to be better than 17in with same res

19in WS vs a 19in non WS...this tough...I really think I prefer the 4:3 ratio...so far I am strongly leaning toward returning this VX1935WM for a Samsung 932b or maybe spending more on a 20in..this getting extra landscape of WS and keeping vertical space as well

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: n7
One thing i dislike is how in the case of 20-22" WS vs. standard & also 19: WS vs. standard, you lose with WS in each situation.

You lose alot of vertical viewing areas, & also in overall pixels.

19" 1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels
19" WS 1440x900 = 1,296,000 pixels

20" 1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels
20/22" WS 1680x1050 = 1,764,000 pixels

It's okay that you don't like WS, no expansive justifications are needed.

 

[gramboh]

Personally, I don't like WS until 1680x1050, I find 1440/900 and 1200/800 too small vertically. I like 1680x1050 on a 15in laptop screen. 1920x1200 is great, good enough vertical and the width is enough for two A4 pages in Word, or an A4 page and Excel worksheet/web browser window or whatever. And yes, WS gaming is awesome.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: gramboh
Personally, I don't like WS until 1680x1050, I find 1440/900 and 1200/800 too small vertically. I like 1680x1050 on a 15in laptop screen. 1920x1200 is great, good enough vertical and the width is enough for two A4 pages in Word, or an A4 page and Excel worksheet/web browser window or whatever. And yes, WS gaming is awesome.

I finding the same on a 19in monitor the 1440x900 is not so good

 

[ScrewFace]

I'm stickin' to my 21" ViewSonic P810 SM CRT. Why would I go wide-screen with all those funky resolutions that none of my games support? Also, with a CRT you can game at any 4:3 resolution you want without worrying about ghosting problems.

I'd definatly buy a 22" LCD monitor if it wasn't wide-screen. Are there any like this available bigger than 19"?

Thanks.

 

[Captante]

For anything smaller the 22 inches I prefer 4:3 myself due to screen height ... really my 24 inch is ideal.

 

[Slammy1]

You can also do 2 window view for Word documents. I can see where I wouldn't want to do that on a smaller screen.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: ScrewFace
I'm stickin' to my 21" ViewSonic P810 SM CRT. Why would I go wide-screen with all those funky resolutions that none of my games support? Also, with a CRT you can game at any 4:3 resolution you want without worrying about ghosting problems.

I'd definatly buy a 22" LCD monitor if it wasn't wide-screen. Are there any like this available bigger than 19"?

Thanks.

Of course, I don't know what games you're currently playing, but all of the ones I currently have installed support 16:10, which is my 225BW's native resolution, and they look fine. Ghosting is a facility of refresh mostly, and any true gamer LCD is going to be 5-8ms or less anyway.

 

[BernardP]

You have exchanged a 19-inch 5:4 monitor for a 19-inch widescreen. You have lost total surface and height. To get at least the same total surface, you would need to get a 20-inch widescreen. This will also move you to 1680x1050 resolution, which beats the 5:4 19-incher in both dimensions.

See for yourself

The increased resolution will mean everything will be noticeably smaller on-screen compared to a standard 5:4 19-incher, which some people... :disgust: ... have trouble with. The antidote is to go to 22-inch with the same 1680x1050 resolution.

 

[nealh]

Originally posted by: BernardP
You have exchanged a 19-inch 5:4 monitor for a 19-inch widescreen. You have lost total surface and height. To get at least the same total surface, you would need to get a 20-inch widescreen. This will also move you to 1680x1050 resolution, which beats the 5:4 19-incher in both dimensions.

See for yourself

The increased resolution will mean everything will be noticeably smaller on-screen compared to a standard 5:4 19-incher, which some people... :disgust: ... have trouble with. The antidote is to go to 22-inch with the same 1680x1050 resolution.

Your right. I am considering the VX2035wm...

I will return this, as the loss in vertical size is just too much

 

[kmmatney]

I have 5 LCDs at home of various sizes. I like my 22" widescreen, but another one I have that I really like is this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116008

it is a 20" 4:3 monitor, and just plain large all around. I've also bought a few of the Acer 20" monitors, and they were very nice:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009109

The built-in resolution is 1400 x 1050, and the pixels are slightly larger than a 19" widescreen. So its slightly wider than a 19" widescreen (but same resolution) and much taller, and overall feels MUCH larger.

If you go for the 20" LCD, just make sure you can handle the small pixel size. I can't, and had to trade in my 20" WS LCD for a 22" one.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: soydios
1680x1050 is wide enough to have 2 word documents open side-by-side. Add Google Toolbar to one side of your screen, and you have a nice setup. Gaming in widescreen is a real treat, though.

I love 1680x1050.

 

[vhx]

I use 1400x900 and I have no complaints. How anyone can prefer 4:3 and downgrade themselves is beyond me. Worse for gaming, web surfing, and probably anything else one would do on a computer.

Of course you lose height, that's the point. Hence WIDEscreen, the size is in the width. IMHO it's all psychological.

 

[Thor86]

Personally, I wouldn't go WS smaller than 1650 x 1080 resolution.

 

[SlowSpyder]

I had a 19" ws (1440x900). It wasn't bad, but I did miss the verticle res. I went to a 22" and it's definitely better. I think the 1680x1050 res is perfect on a 22", but I know some people would rather have the less physical space (20.1") with the same res to have the finer picture. All personal preference.

 

[Auric]

1.60:1 displays may be considered "wide format" even though they are narrower than TV (1.78) which is narrower than the most common film format (1.85) and of course much narrower than true widescreen (2.40).

However to be considered truly wide in my opine, implies that it has the same useable dimensions of a 1.33 or 1.25 display plus additional horizontal. So, for instance, a 1680x1050 display is a "wide" alternative to a 1280x1024, not 1600x1200. For that you would need 1920x1200.

The li'l 1440x900 displays are just baffling really: too small for wide content and too short for documents or any creative work (and rotating doesn't help).

 

[Arkaign]

I'm ludicrously happy with my 1680x1050 WS Satisfied with my 1280x800 notebook (web/video)

I use 4x3 at work, boring PC/network repair stuff, WS irrelevant here.