Are 16:10 computerscreens going the way of the dinosaur for the average desktop user?

[DinJerr]

That's why I have both a 1080p 16:9 monitor, and a 1280x1024 monitor when I need the extra space/retrogaming. I would keep my CRT around if it still functioned, since 640x480 games look crap on LCDs, no matter what ratio it is. :P

__________________
When you

you're signing your death warrant.

ASUSnoir : Xeon E3110 @ 3.0 Ghz | ASUS P5QL Pro | 4GB DDR2 1066 | ASUS EN9800GT 512 DD3 | Seagate 500GB 7200rpm 32MB
Tabby-chan: Dothan 1.6 Ghz | Intel Centrino | 1.5GB DDR 333 | Maxtor 150GB 7200rpm
DangerPC : Athlon XP 1800+ | ASUS A7S333 | 1GB DDR 266 | ATI X1050 | Seagate 80GB 7200rpm 8MB - R.I.P. May '09

[S.SubZero]

Originally Posted by bkwegoharder

Even most games that do support 16:10 natively give less horizontal area than 16:9.

WSGFWiki

Use this website to search through different video games and their widescreen support, you'll see that universally most games give more viewing area with 16:9. It's like the standard at this point.

There's compensations done due to the aspect ratio change. One does not exactly go from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 without losing something. First off, the wider view is still crammed into the same 1920 pixels. Also, the horizontal view now needs to be in 10% less pixels.

Secondly, this assumes that everyone simply sits in front of games. I don't. I "use" Windows for like, productivity. 120 less pixels of resolution is simply less value to me.

__________________
-SSZ

[Lord Zedeck]

Yeah, there's that to take into consideration as well. Most standard grade CRTs were 1024x768, maybe topping out at 1280x960/1024. LCDs came out doing at least 1280x1o24, and then wider and larger resolutions came along. They're not only wider, but offered more pixels than most others. It's not just the width. It's the amount of room you have to work with.

For someone like you, you'd have to move up a size to compensate, which would mean more money and more room taken up. Going from 4:3 to 16:10 actually had reasons behind it, like saving space, energy, and all of the benefits that LCDs brought, but going from a 16:10 LCD to a 16:9 LCD is pointless. It just adds another standard to the mix, especially when everyone is trying to get one standard around 16:10 as it is. Since when did monitors and televisions have to be the same ratio? They're not that far apart, but leave them be. 16:10 should stay, but the company will make what is cheaper, and if the consumer eats it up (I fear they will), then that's what will reign.

__________________

"Without forgiveness, life is governed by an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation."
"Judge people not of their mistakes, but on how they handle those mistakes."

Core 2 Duo E8600 @4.0GHz- ASUS Maximus Formula (Rampage Formula BIOS 0701) - 8GB (4x 2GB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800
MSI nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB - 4x Western Digital Caviar 6400AAKS (2,560GB total) - PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610
IBM P275 21" CRT (1600x1200 @100Hz) - Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Sound System - Windows 7 64-bit & Windows XP SP3

[bkwegoharder]

Originally Posted by Squall-Leonhart

:P WSGF hacks are just hacks.

I'm not talking about the hacks. With 16:9, companies usually show a 4:3 image, and then they extend the horizontal viewing area. With 16:10 they do the same thing, but since 16:10 is more squarish, they don't show as much horizontal viewing space. The vertical area is usually never touched.

[Cid Highwind]

Originally Posted by gamefreak94

lol I really don't like the concept of wide-screen PC monitors at all (it's okay for HDTVs though IMO). 4:3 and 5:4 FTW! More vertical real estate; easier to surf the net/make docs, presentations, spreadsheets and what not!

I disagree, 1920*1200 has the same vertical space as a 1600*1200 screen, it's just wider. This is what makes it easier to create presentations and documents since you can keep open both the information source and your working document next to each other.

__________________

PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz
GPU: Sapphire ATi HD4870 / 1024MB / Core: 801 / Mem: 1000
Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3 (rev 2.1)
SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
RAM: 2GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 @ 4-4-4-12 ~ 800MHz
HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint, 32MB
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W
Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Geometry Wars: 198.400
Lumines: 999.999

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

[gamefreak94]

I disagree, 1920*1200 has the same vertical space as a 1600*1200 screen, it's just wider.

Yeah but you're comparing like a 21" standard screen with a 24" widescreen.....

__________________

How to configure uTorrent for maximum upload and download speed?

---

Last edited by gamefreak94; 3 Weeks Ago at 15:44..

[Cid Highwind]

True, for a good comparison of course I'd need to look at the price as well. It's probably possible to get two 1600*1200 monitors for the price of one 1920*1200. Even better for productivity, however not ideal for movies and games I think.

__________________

PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz
GPU: Sapphire ATi HD4870 / 1024MB / Core: 801 / Mem: 1000
Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3 (rev 2.1)
SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
RAM: 2GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 @ 4-4-4-12 ~ 800MHz
HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint, 32MB
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W
Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Geometry Wars: 198.400
Lumines: 999.999

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

[Lord Zedeck]

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

I disagree, 1920*1200 has the same vertical space as a 1600*1200 screen, it's just wider. This is what makes it easier to create presentations and documents since you can keep open both the information source and your working document next to each other.

That's a valid point, but that's but one way to look at it.

The other way is by saying a 1920 vertical resolution 4:3 monitor has a 1440 vertical resolution, which is more than than 1200. You have just as much width for two things, only without the height restriction. Why do people think you need a wide ratio to use two or more windows side by side? It's all psychological, in the mind. We're actually so used to the near square ratio that unless we can get two near square ratio windows next to each other, we assume there's not enough room.

There's two sides (or more) to every story.

__________________

"Without forgiveness, life is governed by an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation."
"Judge people not of their mistakes, but on how they handle those mistakes."

Core 2 Duo E8600 @4.0GHz- ASUS Maximus Formula (Rampage Formula BIOS 0701) - 8GB (4x 2GB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800
MSI nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB - 4x Western Digital Caviar 6400AAKS (2,560GB total) - PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610
IBM P275 21" CRT (1600x1200 @100Hz) - Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Sound System - Windows 7 64-bit & Windows XP SP3

[KrossX]

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

True, for a good comparison of course I'd need to look at the price as well. It's probably possible to get two 1600*1200 monitors for the price of one 1920*1200. Even better for productivity, however not ideal for movies and games I think.

Completely agreed. And since I'm close enough to the screen, just switching off the secondary is enough for games/movies.

__________________

[Cid Highwind]

Originally Posted by Lord Zedeck

That's a valid point, but that's but one way to look at it.

The other way is by saying a 1920 vertical resolution 4:3 monitor has a 1440 vertical resolution, which is more than than 1200. You have just as much width for two things, only without the height restriction. Why do people think you need a wide ratio to use two or more windows side by side? It's all psychological, in the mind. We're actually so used to the near square ratio that unless we can get two near square ratio windows next to each other, we assume there's not enough room.

There's two sides (or more) to every story.

lol, good point. But 1920*1200 has a better availability here, simply because widescreen is the hot thing to get. I've never seen the resolution you described to be honest.

__________________

PC Specs:
CPU: Intel Q8200 @ 2.8GHz
GPU: Sapphire ATi HD4870 / 1024MB / Core: 801 / Mem: 1000
Mobo: Gigabyte EP35-DS3 (rev 2.1)
SPU: Creative X-Fi Xtreme Music
RAM: 2GB Kingston HyperX DDR2 1066 @ 4-4-4-12 ~ 800MHz
HDD: 1TB Samsung Spinpoint, 32MB
PSU: Hiper Type-R 580W
Monitor: Iiyama B2403WS / 1920*1200

Geometry Wars: 198.400
Lumines: 999.999

Join the NGEmu Folding @ Home community NOW!

[PCXL-Fan]

For text its much easier to read when your eyes aren't panning across the screen.

I find its much more pleasant to read websites or any type of text for that matter, when they don't span across the entire screen. This is true for 16:10 but its going to be even more of an issue for me on 16:9.

__________________

Try @ES the ultimate emulator frontend and all in one media player

Originally Posted by Exodus

Yes, I like anime, Street Fighter, Japanese music and download video game music. Yes, I know... I've changed.

gamersat678's Bug Reporter ||| cottonvibe's pcsx2 guide for noobs ||| GSdx plugin ||| DirectX End-User Runtime Web Installer

[Lord Zedeck]

Originally Posted by Cid Highwind

lol, good point. But 1920*1200 has a better availability here, simply because widescreen is the hot thing to get. I've never seen the resolution you described to be honest.

It's the 4:3 1920 resolution. It falls under 2048x1536 and above than 1600x1200. Some CRT screens that can't quite do 2048x1536 (namely some shadow mask ones) will instead max out at 1920x1440.

Originally Posted by PCXL-Fan

For text its much easier to read when your eyes aren't panning across the screen.

I find its much more pleasant to read websites or any type of text for that matter, when they don't span across the entire screen. This is true for 16:10 but its going to be even more of an issue for me on 16:9.

Why not run your browser at less than maximum? I really find it just a little odd how anyone with a screen over about 1280x1024 would run their browser maximized. I don't. In fact, my browser window is probably only a little smaller than ~1280x960. Even if you're doing nothing else and don't "need" the space, websites simply aren't built for those higher resolutions, and it just looks odd, and you end up with problems like you described. I can't believe people with 1680x1050, or even 1920x1200, resolution screens run their browser window maximized, namely for the reason you described, but to each their own.

__________________

"Without forgiveness, life is governed by an endless cycle of resentment and retaliation."
"Judge people not of their mistakes, but on how they handle those mistakes."

Core 2 Duo E8600 @4.0GHz- ASUS Maximus Formula (Rampage Formula BIOS 0701) - 8GB (4x 2GB) Corsair XMS2 DDR2 800
MSI nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB - 4x Western Digital Caviar 6400AAKS (2,560GB total) - PC Power & Cooling Silencer 610
IBM P275 21" CRT (1600x1200 @100Hz) - Logitech Z-2300 2.1 Sound System - Windows 7 64-bit & Windows XP SP3

[Silenus]

Only thing I don't like too much of my laptop is the res.
1366*768 wtf.

This is not a TV ASUS.

__________________

--ASUS G50VT-X1 - P8400 2.5GHZ - Geforce 9800GS 512MB - HDD 320GB - 4GB DDR2 800MHZ - WINDOWS 7 64 BIT - ZALMAN NC2000--

...Mis sueños son mentiras que algun día dejarán de serlo...

[gamefreak94]

16:9 laptop screens are the devil! At 15.4", vertical real estate is in SEVERE shortage. I still prefer the 4:3 15" screen on my old Compaq laptop to the newer one any day.

__________________

How to configure uTorrent for maximum upload and download speed?

[Silenus]

Yeah I can't even play desmume correctly. arrg.

__________________

--ASUS G50VT-X1 - P8400 2.5GHZ - Geforce 9800GS 512MB - HDD 320GB - 4GB DDR2 800MHZ - WINDOWS 7 64 BIT - ZALMAN NC2000--

...Mis sueños son mentiras que algun día dejarán de serlo...

[Phil]

16:9 is a rather silly ratio for a computer monitor. They are ll the rage rage these days, with the advertisements say "1080P!!" like the protocol is the gold standard or something.

__________________

A Mac is like an escort, you pay a ton and get nothing.
A PC is like a hooker, it's a lot cheaper and gives you what you're after.. and if unlucky some diseases as well, that's why you gotta use protection. -CC