Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by ImDrunkAgain, Oct 22, 2007.
On a computer monitor, around 19-20", is a standard screen better, or a widescreen monitor?
depends on the resolution.
1280x1024 > 1280x800 (std > wscr)
1680x1050 > 1280x1024 (wscr > std)
It depends on what you are going to be using it for. For me, I personally hate widescreens, 1600x1200 = 9 terminal windows, 1680x1050 = 6 terminal windows.
I prefer widescreen now that I've tried it, however I watch a lot of movies. 19" 1440x900 is perfect for gaming, too
I will mostly be using it for writing papers for grad school, but I will probably end up playing some games on it as well. My setup will be:
Intel Core 2 64-bit CPU E2180 running @ 1066MHz FSB (2 x 2.66GHz)
SIS 671 Motherboard with 1066MHz FSB support, 16x PCI-Express video
2-Gig of DDR2-PC6400 (800MHz) Memory for better performance in Vista.
500-Gig, SATA 7200 RPM, 16 Meg Cache Hard Drive, Huge and Fast
GeForce 6600GT PCI-Express Video Card with DVI output for LCD monitor
would I be better off with a standard screen since I'm not playing as many games as most, or would a widescreen be better for my setup?
and I will be running dual OSs, XP Pro and Vista Ultimate
if you haven't bought the gear yet, please switch out the motherboard, the SIS chipsets are utter garbage. Poor driver support, buggy drivers and cheap components. Go with an Asus, Gigabyte or Intel board.
Thanks Dan, I'll be sure to make that change
I just upgraded to a 22" ws.. the extra real estate is nice for laying documents next to each other for comparison, and it feels a lot nicer looking at it than to my standard size next to it. id say get a ws... 22" ws at 1680x1050 can be had for less than 250
If you want a 20" go with wide, you should get 1680x1050 resolution, but for 19" go with standard (1280x1024), I dont know if youve ever seen a 19" widescreen, they look very wide and short, like driving a tank looking through the port hole, too small for me
go to a store that has them all lined up next to each other and see which you prefer, then buy whichever fits your price range best
and in reference to the post above, pretty much all 22" widescreens are just bigger versions of the 20" widescreens, same resolution, everything just looks bigger
Widescreen annoys me. My mind doesn't percieve it as wider than a normal screen with the same height, but as shorter than a normal screen with the same width. But then, I do tend to look at documents from time to time; strangely, my boss says watching movies isn't "billable work", or something like that.
If you're going to buy a big screen, get one that has some height to it.
Thanks to all for your input. I'm still not sure whether to go 19" or 20", depending on where I can get a good deal on one. 22" is too much money for me right now, and I really don't need a screen that big.
if you can't afford a 24" or bigger, then DONT do it. You'll regret it. a 19" widescreen is worthless and annoying.
widescreens aren't that much more expensive than a standard, well depending on how big you go. why not just go widescreen anyway? widescreen will be the standard in the future, might as well do it now
Except the only thing you ever look at on a computer that is that much wider than it is tall, is a movie. So it's only good for movies. It's not helpful with web pages, and it's totally useless with documents.
17" holy cow that's small.
Is there really any point in having a 19 or 20" widescreen monitor if I don't play many games and don't watch movies on my comp? I write papers, and it would be nice to be able to have 2 papers or 1 paper and an internet screen on the same screen, but is a widescreen monitor at that size worth it?
then get two 19" standard-ratio monitors.
Can't beat a 16:6 ratio if you want width, and the option to use the two screens for totally different things is nice too.
Widescreen > standard.
For both work and gaming, for me anyways.
A huge monitor is not needed for me. So, a dual-monitor system would be too much for me to spend and I would never need that much viewing space. I don't think spending 2x the amount of 1 monitor to be able to view 2 documents on 2 screens would make sense for me.
Thanks for all the input.
I have a 22inch widescreen. I wouldn't bother getting anything smaller. They seem huge at first but you VERY quickly get used to it. I can't even imagine going back to my 14inch LCD now, but 22 inches doesn't seem as crazy big as it once did. I think if you end up getting a 19 inch you'll be disappointed.
Honestly I love it. You can have two fullsize word documents open at once next to each other. Games, movies etc look great at 1680x1050.
widescreen > standard if your screen size is less than 22".
I have both a 22" ws and 19" std dual monitor setup. The widescreen is amazing. I actually find myself playing games on the 22" or using the 22" for dual window purposes and the other monitor for things like e-mail/im/calculator/etc.
Quite often I'll play a game on the 22" in windowed mode and watch a movie on the 19". I strongly prefer the widescreen monitor and use the standard as backup. It is quite a bit smaller though at 19". I've had the 19" for a few years now and recently purchased the 22". I was worried about all the TN horror stories and not being able to afford a 24", but I'm glad I got the 22. It was worth every penny. Recently at work we upgraded from 17" LCDs to 22" widescreens and everyone sees the difference and thinks it's amazing. So much more productive. The screens we have at work are shitty brand, but just the 1680x1050 resolution is more than enough to make everyone happy.
I know someone with this monitor and he loves it..
I wouldn't recommend the brand, but I'm sure it's just a rebadged screen. It's extremely popular in online reviews and fairly inexpensive.
CAD and photoshop/illustrator work is nice on a widescreen, since the toolbars/palettes don't crowd the image.
i've very rarely needed to look at two documents at once when writing a paper (i'm in grad school also) for any extended period of time. but my field isn't very writing based.