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

[BernardP]

Originally posted by: Auric
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).

Exactly. I am ready to go wide, but don't want to lose any height. I want more, not a different trade-off between height and width.

 

[Stories]

I use a 17" 4:3 at work and a 20" 16:10 at home, and there's no comparison. The WS is hands down the superior monitor and the convenience of stacking Word/Firefox/PP/Excel next to each other on the WS is absolutely worth the price of admission. That and movies are much better on the 16:10 and games that support it natively are far superior (although older games have a tougher time with it).

 

[gramboh]

Originally posted by: 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).

Exactly. This is why I like 24in and 1920x1200, it's 1600x1200 which is a good desktop/gaming res plus additional width.