Would you buy an LCD that's not widescreen?

[taltamir]

24+ (or at LEAST 22+) widescreen. Otherwise its just too short.

I never liked 4:3, 5:4 was much better... 19 inch is the ideal size for that.

And 19 inch LCDs are EXACTLY 19 inch diagonally of display area.
CRTs on the other hand start at the plastic, and end at the actual display. So a 19 inch is typically 17.5 inches + 1.5 inches of plastic usually. and 5:4 LCDs also have greater surface area for the same amount of inches.

Anyways, in regards to the question, no I wouldn't buy a non widescreen LCD, or anything less then 24 inch for that matter. In fact I want to upgrade my 24 incher to a 30 inch.

 

[Dadofamunky]

I prefer 4:3 CRTs for one big reason: I need lots of vertical pixels. In fact, I hate the widescreen LCD trend. the exception is that 1920x1200/2560/1600 float my boat too. But the 1680x1050 LCDs are useless for me.

 

[Throckmorton]

19" LCDs are 5:4 (1280x1024)

 

[myocardia]

I recently bought two 19" LCD's, and neither were widescreen. I still haven't figured out why some people like widescreen computer monitors, but I guess that you should buy what you like, as I did.

 

[taltamir]

have you tried a 1920x1200 widescreen? anything lower is too short vertically. But at that res you have even more vertical space, compounded with massive horizontal space, useful for a variety of reasons that are shared with the use of multi monitor setups.

 

[Ika]

I've gotten so used to the amount of horizontal space widescreen allows that I can't go back to regular-screen anymore. It's easier to scroll vertically than horizontally.

 

[deadken]

I'm still using my 20" Samsung 1600x1200. I can't see going to a Widescreen with less then 1200 Vertical pixels (as others have stated). I do game and 3+ years ago (when I got this 204B), Widescreen format wasn't widely supported in games. Certainly things have changed. I considered getting the Soyo 24" Widescreen from OfficaMax, but I decided against it. I just don't want to. 4:3 is fine for me.

Edit: BTW Aflac, I don't ever scroll horizontally. I don't know what you use your PC for. but for me that is not an issue at all.

 

[Schadenfroh]

I use a Dell 2001FP for gaming, office / programming work. At the time, I bought it over its widescreen equivalent due to it being slightly cheaper, more surface area, and many of the games that I played (and still play) do not support widescreen. I plan on upgrading to a widescreen 24" panel once the true 8-bit displays come down in price that feature DisplayPort and HDCP.

 

[n7]

I actually think the perfect setup involves displays 1600 pixels high.

Not kidding, either.

I don't mind 1920x1200, but height is still lacking.

For web pages, & especially forums, it's absolutely awesome having the extra pixels

I personally have run at least one of my displays in portrait mode for quite a few years now, since it's so much more ideal for web stuff in general, or scrolling thru folders in detail view, etc.

Now having a WS main display is indeed necessary for movies, TV shows, & games, or runnings things side by side.

But i wouldn't want anything less than 1200, ideally higher.

I run a 3760x1600 main desktop, which is my 30" + a 20" non WS in portrait, & frankly, i couldn't be happier.

The 30" WS handles all the multimedia, entertainment, gaming, etc. stuff, & right next to it sits AT forums (or whatever webpage, or IRC, etc.) in the 20" @ 1200x1600.

I also run my secondary PC's display @ 1200x1600, since space is a bit limited on the desk with three displays, but also since once again, portrait is awesome for everything i'm using the secondary system for.

WS 1680x1050 is basically a PITA IMO, since absolutely nothing matches up with that for a multi-display setup other than other 20/22" displays.

1920x1200 x2 or 1920x1200 + 1600x1200 is nice.

Or 2560x1600 + 1200x1600 is great.

Obviously, this is an each to their own type of situation, but to me, WS is a waste on anything lower than 1920x1200, as i said before.

I really dislike the 1680x1050 phenomenon, for a number of reasons, a number which i mentioned.

Got on a bit of a tangent there i realize...

 

[Dadofamunky]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
I use a Dell 2001FP for gaming, office / programming work. At the time, I bought it over its widescreen equivalent due to it being slightly cheaper, more surface area, and many of the games that I played (and still play) do not support widescreen. I plan on upgrading to a widescreen 24" panel once the true 8-bit displays come down in price that feature DisplayPort and HDCP.

I got two!.

Maybe someday I'll replace them with two 24' lcds.

N7 has a lot of good points that I agree with...

 

[Borealis7]

i have a 20" 4:3 1600x1200 screen, i love it and i dont want WS. not for games, not for movies, ever.

although i might be forced to get a WS if i ever want to go up in size to a 24" and hook up my satTV to it directly.

 

[elle08]

4:3 is not bad i think they are still available but then widescreen is much better for all purposes

 

[elle08]

4:3 is not bad i guess they are not phased out yet you can probably have them in any surplus stores.. but widescreen are far more better, best for all purposes..

 

[Harvey]

Do the math. The Pythagorean theorem shows that, for any given diagonal measurement, you get more picture for your money with a good 4:3 screen. For example, comparing monitors with a 19" diagonal measurement:

Ratio: 4:3

Width: 15.2"
Height: 11.4"

Ratio: 5:3

Width: 16.292"
Height: 9.775"

For a 20" diagonal:

Ratio: 4:3

Width: 16"
Height: 12"

Ratio: 5:3

Width: 17.15"
Height: 10.29"

This shows:

1. A 19" screen with a 4:3 ratio has more vertical height than a 20" screen with a 5:3 ratio.

2. The width of a 20" screen with a 4:3 ratio is only 0.292" less than the width of a 19" screen with a 5:3 ratio.

3. Working back, a 19" 5:3 screen is same height as a 16.292" 4:3 screen, and a 20" 5:3 screen is same height as a 17.15" 4:3 screen.

This means, when working on text documents, the 4:3 screen displays either more lines of text or a larger font for the same number of lines than a larger monitor with 5:3 ratio, but a wide screen image on a 20" 4:3 monitor is very close in size to the same image displayed on a 19" 5:3 monitor.

We have only two choices. We can display wide screen images on a 4:3 screen with unilluminated bands at the top and bottom, or we can display 4:3 images with unilluminated bands at the sides. Add to that, when a vid card is set for a wide screen image, such as 1280 x 768, many systems don't detect 4:3 images and automatically adjust to display them correctly, resulting in a spread out, distorted image.

Assuming the two screens have otherwise equivalent picture quality over area, for any given diagonal screen size, I'd much rather have a larger 4:3 monitor.