Why are monitor designers all idiots.

When you have a smaller monitor it makes even more difference too when coding because sometimes its the difference between 12 lines and 10, thats like 20% more ;O
 
CaptainSensible said:
In the end, losing any amount of pixels is a downgrade; it's hard to see why someone with a 16:10 monitor would swap one for a 16:9 monitor to be honest. You don't gain anything.
Click to expand...

I doubt they're expecting anyone with a 24" 16:10 to swap it for a 24" 16:9 monitor, the people who they'll sell 16:9 monitors to are people like me, who currently have 16:10 1680x1050 monitors and want to step up a bit. Going from this to 1920x1080 would be a big step up in size and make a huge difference for games and movies (admittedly, these are what I use this PC for most)

I was happy with the step up from 1280x1024 to 1680x1050 - a whole 26px extra in height but a big difference, why wouldn't I be happy with the step from 1680x1050 to 1920x1080? Especially if that screen was cheaper than a 16:10 the same size - which is pretty much what happened last time. 20" non-widescreens (1600x1200) were(/are?) pretty darn expensive. Yes, looking on OcUK now, a dell 2007FP is about £100 more than a 2009WFP even though it's ggot much worse specs.

Then again, I've still got my 1280x1024 screen in portrait for if I need to see lots of lines. And that's probably worth about £10 and fits more lines than a 16:10 24" Screen would.
 
I'm a designer/ illustrator and really hope 16:9 doesn't become the standard, losing the height will be very annoying. I don't see why the black bars are such an issue, stretching the image if the bars aren't too big is no problem, it does look strange if the bars are bigger on some films and the image looks over stretched.
 
I prefer 16:10, to be honest I prefer 4:3 for monitors, when your doing video editing, artwork, office work and programming you really want vertical resolution.
 
to be honest, how many people have 2 4:3 monitors sitting side by side? that's like 16:6 or something ridiculous.

I want the extra width because that's closer to what my field of view is, and without a black bar down the middle is even better - if I could get a 3840x1600 monitor, I'd be pretty happy.
 
see I'm currently on a 20" 1680x1050 which I use for games, msn, itunes and general random stuff and a 17" 1024x1280 which I use for browsing, WP and maple/matlab. I've also got a 32" TV that I use for TV, movies and console gaming, but it's a CRT - so it's not really 32" and it takes up a fair bit of space.

I'd happily buy a 2709 today if OcUK had them in stock or a 3008 if I had the money. But I can't say a 24, 27 or 30 inch 16:9 wouldn't tempt me if they were available and slightly cheaper than their 16:10 counterparts. But if I had the 16:10 there's no way I'd swap it for a 16:9 of the same size.


edit: Just thought I'd add that I only really still have the 17" because it had almost no resale value when I upgraded, So I just plugged it in and now I really like having it portrait for the web and stuff. My desk looks pretty stupid with this setup but it's productive, I like.
 
Last edited:
Agree to disagree, but I think this issue can be summed up quite easily:

Lots of people who used to work with large CRTs @ 1600x1200 have just got used to having 1200 vertical pixels. Consequently, the potential for there being no gap between 16:9 monitors with 1080 vertical pixels and the much more expensive 2560x1600 screens is a bit worrying. It's a bit like your local clothes shop deciding that they aren't going to sell clothes in your preferred size anymore.
 
Why oh why the new computers are sized in ATX midi tower and not a size of whole room !?!? I CANT UNDERSTAND !?!? Whyyy, I think we could have now a 40GHZ machines with 90GB of ram if they were bigger, i think i wont stand this difference... oh wait..


On the other hand I dont mind, the monitors obviously nowdays are SO DAMN CHEAP that if you want more space you can slap huge 30 inch on your desk, if thats not enough you can put another 30" on top of the other one and have 3200 vertical resolution so if you're doing a REAL WORK and need it that much then why not do it. 3200 is obviously better than 1080, 1200 or even 1400.
 
PhoenixUK said:
On the other hand I dont mind, the monitors obviously nowdays are SO DAMN CHEAP that if you want more space you can slap huge 30 inch on your desk, if thats not enough you can put another 30" on top of the other one and have 3200 vertical resolution so if you're doing a REAL WORK and need it that much then why not do it. 3200 is obviously better than 1080, 1200 or even 1400.
Click to expand...

Ratio is more important than size or resolution. Spending hundreds on a 30" monitor that won't even fit on your desk isn't the best solution to increase productivity.
 
CaptainSensible said:
resolution is more important than ratio; you aren't going to be able to do much on work on a 16:10 monitor with a resolution of 16x10 pixels...
Click to expand...

You can't do much on a monitor with a resolution of 1,000,000,000,000 pixels if the aspect ratio is 1:1000000000000 either, so that's a pointless thing to say. No monitors have a resolution of 16x10 in the real world. Aspect ratio is more important to me than resolution given the real world monitors avalible.
 
Last edited:
PhoenixUK said:
Why oh why the new computers are sized in ATX midi tower and not a size of whole room !?!? I CANT UNDERSTAND !?!? Whyyy, I think we could have now a 40GHZ machines with 90GB of ram if they were bigger, i think i wont stand this difference... oh wait..


On the other hand I dont mind, the monitors obviously nowdays are SO DAMN CHEAP that if you want more space you can slap huge 30 inch on your desk, if thats not enough you can put another 30" on top of the other one and have 3200 vertical resolution so if you're doing a REAL WORK and need it that much then why not do it. 3200 is obviously better than 1080, 1200 or even 1400.
Click to expand...

And the award for the most facetious comment made on the fourm tonight goes to PhoenixUK!
 
I'm still on 5:4, wanting to upgrade to 16:10 either 20 or 24" but have never been able to make my mind up. Monitor designers are idiots; I want a nice looking quality non-tn panel that's not ridiculous moneywise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom