Widescreen monitors suck.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So you decided to buy Acer :D No wonder you are pissed..

Maybe you should try something that can be actually can a display device instead of torture device?

Btw, widescreen is the only way I would go.. I have two 24" widescreen now.. I think I'll upgrade to two 30" when those new LED things reach those sizes..
 


Rotate your monitor and use windows to rotate the output. Turn your widescreen into a tall screen and quit your bitching. Buy a monitor that swivels if you need to switch back and forth often.
 
micfire said:
So you decided to buy Acer :D No wonder you are pissed..

Maybe you should try something that can be actually can a display device instead of torture device?

Btw, widescreen is the only way I would go.. I have two 24" widescreen now.. I think I'll upgrade to two 30" when those new LED things reach those sizes..
Click to expand...

same here. two 24" is the way to go.

I know you are probably on a really tight budget hence the Acer (at least i would hope so since you can even consider Acer) but get a 22" or a 24" with an actual res of at least 1680 x 1050. 1920x1200 would be even cooler :-)
 
Okay, I take it all back. I got the 22 inch and this thing is crazy.

So much space. I don't even know what to do with it all...

The 20 inch still sucks balls though.
 
I didn't read any of the responses but yeah you do lose space on some of the smaller sizes. But if you're running something bigger like a 24 I don't even think they come in 4:3.
 
I think widescreens are a bit more productive than the older ratio. I use a browser on one side and usually Excel on the other side. Or Dreamweaver.

Buit the reason that the manufacturers are pushing widescreen is becuase it seems like the new hot thing with DVD viewing being fullsreen. AND the most important part is that it is cheaper to make a 19" widescreen than a standard aspect monitor. Becuase of the circular LCD wafer that screen are cut from are easier to divide up with the wide ratio. You get more screens cut from the same wafer board. That is why their was a glut of cheap 19"s when they figured that out.
 
subigo said:
Okay, I take it all back. I got the 22 inch and this thing is crazy.

So much space. I don't even know what to do with it all...

The 20 inch still sucks balls though.
Click to expand...

I bought the 22 inch Acer for my dad for Christmas. It's fucking nice. Only issue I have is the low contrast ratio, my samsung 22" has 2000:1 I believe, and this only 800:1. It doesn't really matter, but if I'm going to get a second one to go with my samsung I want matching.
 
I've had a 27" Samsung Syncmaster 275r for a while now and I'm NEVER going back. Probably going to pick up another someday, or switch over to two 30" Apple Cinemas.
 
TylerL said:
I've had a 27" Samsung Syncmaster 275r for a while now and I'm NEVER going back. Probably going to pick up another someday, or switch over to two 30" Apple Cinemas.
Click to expand...
Yuck, apple.

I'm getting some 23" HD ones from Dell, they're on special. £155 a piece.
 
TylerL said:
I've had a 27" Samsung Syncmaster 275r for a while now and I'm NEVER going back. Probably going to pick up another someday, or switch over to two 30" Apple Cinemas.
Click to expand...

I'd take a pass on the Cinema Displays and go with Dells.

The Apples are 700:1 contrast and 16ms refresh rate.

The specs on the Dells are 3000:1 contrast and 8ms refresh rate.

The Apples have that super shiny hardcoat on them which is terrible for glare.

The Dells are matte coated for reduced glare.

The Apples only tilt but do not raise, lower, swivel or rotate.

The Dells do all of the above.

The choice is pretty clear IMO.
 
rgordon83 said:
i assume you dont have a mac.
Click to expand...

My very first computer back in college was a new Mac PPC 8200/120. By the time I had upgraded it a couple years later, with a better procesor (240mhz!), video card (32mb!), RAM (4 x 64mb dimms at $400+ each!), more drive connections, USB, etc. etc. I'd dumped more than 10k into that computer.

rgordon83 said:
It's sickness...
Click to expand...

WTF does that even mean? This isn't some argument based on Mac/PC fanboi emotions, I'm quoting straight specs and the winner is clearly the Dells. I'm sure the Apples displays are lovely to look at, but I don't buy things based on esthetics alone, I do my homework and look at the numbers.
 
Another example, I have a 20" 3x4 that runs at 1600x1200 and a 24" widescreen that runs at 1920x1200, so the vertical resolution is exactly the same.
Click to expand...

I have the exact same setup. I love it.

I'm surprised Windows took so long to implement multiple desktops. I'm assuming Vista has it? but there have been third party programs for XP for years. Resizing windows is a hell of a lot of work, but you only realize this after you stop doing it.

With my setup, I have 4 desktops and 2 displays, so that's 8 desktops worth of space. On the first I have my calendar full screen on 1 display and my chat windows and music, nothing overlaps.

On the second I do my work, usually vim maximized, and on the right I have a maximized Firefox/Firebug.

On the third I have a fullscreen of the log file of whatever I'm working on so I can see the output in real time, and on another screen I have a debugger.

On my last screen I put shit that I just have running but might need to glance at, like torrents, things I plan to get to eventually (firefox windows, ebooks, etc).

Another neat thing I do is, if I ever need to use Windows (I have it in virtualbox), I can run it fullscreen in another display, so 1 display is Linux and the other is Windows, and I can use them both simultanously.

Switching desktops is alt+F1-F4. I never need to use the mouse except for web browsing. I'm running Ubuntu but this setup can be had in OS X as well. I used to use Deskwin in Windows XP, it's ugly but works perfectly. Just set shortcuts and hide the hideous pink/blue window.

WickedFire shouldn't look "squished." It has a fluid layout. The lame thing about widescreens and fluid layouts is that a column of text should only be stretched across so much, before it becomes a nuisance to read. You should be able to read the entire text without turning your head left and right. That's my biggest gripe with wide screens but it was also a problem with 4x3.

It's more of a site design problem. I get around it by having shortcuts for toggling window size to desired width for reading (800px width of text, max, not counting sidebars and avatars) and maximizing. To do this you can use Devilspie, I'm not sure what OSes other than Linux it's available for.
 
Fatbat said:
This isn't some argument based on Mac/PC fanboi emotions, I'm quoting straight specs and the winner is clearly the Dells. I'm sure the Apples displays are lovely to look at, but I don't buy things based on esthetics alone, I do my homework and look at the numbers.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right. In fact, I'm waiting on a shipment of new parts to build a hackintosh as my main box, just because I refuse to put down the cash for a Mac Pro.

But brand also plays a part in what people buy. You can buy a Mercedes and justify it logically by saying it has this much power and etc, but in reality you're buying it based on "fanboi emotions." You wanna join the elite people you associate with Mercedes (or Honda, or whatever you like), and you're willing to pay $20K more just for this image.

Owning an Apple is similar. The specs are shit (they're powerful, but performance per dollar is low compared to a PC), but you're paying for the tech support, and prestige of owning an Apple. You can also reject Apple because you reject the group you associate uses Apple. I used to associate "Apple" with skinny people wearing thick black frame vintage nerd glasses, sitting in Starbucks, coming off as snobby and wearing expensive shoes.

Nowadays, I associate OS X with the traditional hackers I used to associate Linux with. But I'm still iffy about Apple hardware.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom