• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Would you buy an LCD that's not widescreen?

A

Aztech

Golden Member
Is the old form factor obsolete? The old 19" LCDs that are not widescreen just look bigger to me than widescreens for some reason. Are there application for which the old (4:3) monitors work better? Are they being phased out? Which do you prefer and why?
 
For "office" work, in my mind up to 19" is better in 4:3. Over that, go for widescreen.

For gaming, widescreen all the way.

-z
 
I tried running my WS Dell 2407WFP and 2005FPW panels together, and I can't really say that I liked it. The workspace was just really wide, and it took up an enormous amount of desk space.

For a single monitor setup I think I would almost always prefer a WS LCD, but for dual monitors I would imagine that dual 1600x1200 screens would be really nice.
 
19" CRT is actually 18". 19" LCD is 19" or maybe 18.785" worst case scenario. It looks bigger because it is.

Ooops, guess I didnt answer your question.
19" widescreen looks tiny compared to a 19" 4:3 because of height. my 22" WS screen was just about the same height as my 21" (20") CRT. So I'm willing to venture saying a 19" WS is about the same height as a 17" 4:3. Huge difference. WS really isnt a good deal as far as price per square inch goes. It does give a wider viewing area when gaming and you can put 2 'sheets' side by side for office work. But you pay a lot more for 30% more space.
 
Once I went widescreen for gaming on my home computer I don't think I'd want to go back to 4:3. But, at work we use 18" Dell 4:3 monitors. For office, IE, etc. it works fine for what we do. I don't think their would be any advantage to widescreen.
 
I'm typing this on my fileserver with a 17" 1280x1024 panel while running 3dmark06 on my 19" 1440x900 monitor, and I can say that I MUCH prefer the WS monitors.
 
well a 19" 4:3 IS bigger thana 19" 16:10

a square has the greatest area of any quadrilateral. and 4:3 is closer to a square.

similarly a 20" 4:3 is bigger than a 20" 16:9

not to mention has more pixels (1600x1200) > (1680x1050)


I'd say it depends on the work you are doing. I would say for me personally on my workstation at work, i have dual 20" 4:3 monitors and i think its nicer for like coding to have 4:3 as text cant really spread "wider" as easily as just be able to see more lines on a screen with more pixels.
 
My old LCD was a 20" 4:3 with a 1400 x 1050 resolution. It was awesome for work, and games were nice as well. I prefered it over 19" widescreen that I also had. IMO, widescreens are not that great until the 22" size and above. I love my current 24" widescreen.

At work, I was using a 21.6" 1600 x 1200 LCD, and recently replaced it with the 28" Hanns-G widescreen. I've never been more productive. Yes, I like big pixels!
 
Originally posted by: kmmatney
IMO, widescreens are not that great until the 22" size and above. I love my current 24" widescreen.
Click to expand...

I agree. I would not buy a new widescreen LCD less than 22". The vertical viewing measurement on anything less is too small.
 
WS if there are 1200+ vertical pixels, 5:4 or 4:3 for everything else.

1440x900 is for suckers who are bad at math.

Viper GTS
 
Is 900 vs 1024 vertically that much a difference?

The screen area on my 21" Trinitron is aproximately 12" vertically by 16" horizontal.

The outside dimensions of a Dell 1908WFP i'm thinking of getting is 13.3 x 17.43
Chop off 2 inches for the edges on the Dell, thats 11.3 x 15.43 viewing area. Not a big difference from my Trinitron.
 
I only buy/use normal monitors/resolutions. 4:3 is also "wide" as it's not a square. And seriously when I walk around in shops, all those 4:3 screens look like widescreens to me. And the widescreens look like tiny mirrors (or like mutant 4:3 screens =P).

I don't watch movies, and I play games at 4:3 resolutions (those are the most supported ones). When I was choosing a 20" LCD, the low height of widescreen monitors was simply unacceptable.

I learned to dislike widescreens a bit during the new-LCD-shopping phase because manufacturers give much less attention to non-widescreens nowadays, which in turn means less to choose and higher prices for 4:3 shoppers. (5:4 seemed to be some kind of 19"-only anomaly)
 
Originally posted by: greyeyezz
Is 900 vs 1024 vertically that much a difference?

The screen area on my 21" Trinitron is aproximately 12" vertically by 16" horizontal.

The outside dimensions of a Dell 1908WFP i'm thinking of getting is 13.3 x 17.43
Chop off 2 inches for the edges on the Dell, thats 11.3 x 15.43 viewing area. Not a big difference from my Trinitron.
Click to expand...

CRT Vs. LCD

Try comparing a 21" 4:3 LCD with a 19" widescreen LCD, it's pathetic!

http://www.tvcalculator.com
 
For my last build I went with a regular 19" LCD but that was because a wide screen wouldnt fit for where I wanted to put it. But if room isnt a issue I'd say always go with a widescreen LCD. Its a personal choice though. 22" widescreens are my personal favorites right now.
 
When I replaced my 17" LCD screen I bought a widescreen 22" LCD
That way I didn't lose any of the screen height I was used to and just gained more width.

The same with my HDTV. I got one that has about the same screen height as my old square tube, so again I just gained more width.
I wouldn't want to go back to old 4:3 screens tbh.
 
Widescreen is relentlessly gaining ground and it won't stop. It is to be expected that 4:3 and 5:4 formats will gradually disappear, like it or not.
 
Buy whatever you like. I still use a 20" 1600 x 1200 Samsung as my main/gaming rig. My spare unit has a 19" widescreen Dell at 1440 x 900. The standard resolutions are supported by pretty much every game, widescreen resolutions can be made to work in many older games so it's really not that much of an issue. I prefer 4:3, and the only time I played on a borrowed 22" it felt like my mouse movements were off. I'm guessing the x and y axis were set the same, so I had to make more exagerated movements looking left and right than up and down. I would think that can be adjusted also, but I never looked into it.
When I upgrade it will be a 22" or 24", any smaller looks tiny and too small top to bottom.
 
I use a 4:3 CRT and like the size for text and office work, although I wouldn't mind something widescreen for games as long as it's the same height (not willing to go LCD for that though). I would only consider widescreens at the 24" size or higher, and also only those that have fixed aspect scaling in hardware.
 
19" WS is horrible...900 pixels high is far too low to be ideal; i'd rather have 1280x1024 unless it was strictly being used for movie viewing only.

I don't like anything lower than 1200 pixels high TBH...which means 24"+ WS.

20/22" WS are okay, but i prefer my 1600x1200, both of which i run at 1200x1600 (far better than 1050x1680 is).
 
My preference is tallscreen. I like 1280x1024 and being able to rotate to 1024x1280. It's simply the best for documents -including, of course, teh internets. Widescreen is a misnomer if it does not at least maintain the same height while adding width. Otherwise, most so-called widescreens are actually shortscreens.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top