Widescreen monitor or not

foreright · 31 Mar 2007 at 15:40

For general office work and web browsing etc. are there any benefits from a WS monitor.
A friend has bought a 22" WS monitor and it looks weird to me with widened icons etc. If you have one and want to keep the correct aspect ratio can you calibrate it correctly to show true squares fore example. Hope this makes sense, I know what I mean.

Gas Panic! · 31 Mar 2007 at 16:53

Your friend is probably running it in an incorrect resolution. Everything on my monitor looks exactly the same as it would on a 4:3 aspect ratio.

foreright · 31 Mar 2007 at 17:53

He's running it at 1152 by 864

Raikiri · 31 Mar 2007 at 18:12

On the desktop...?

Tell him to set it to 1680x1050 and it will look 100x times better.

foreright · 31 Mar 2007 at 18:15

Thanks for the replies. A part of the problem I feel is that he prefers large print etc. Therefor that particular resolution wouldn't suit him. I now realise that he most probarly has a re of 4:3 and not 16:10 and he will have to fiddle to find the best largest resolution with the correct aspect ratio.

Edit:
He's set it at 1680 by 1050 and moire than happy. Thanks for the help.

Raikiri · 31 Mar 2007 at 18:52

He should be able to increase the text size as well, Display properties, Appearance, Font size

By the way, I defiantly think you should get a widescreen, they are far better for video and games. Just as good in general use too.

chaparral · 31 Mar 2007 at 22:23

Raikiri said:
Just as good in general use too.

I find my widescreen to be much better in general use as it much better for having two or more pages open along side each other at the same time...

Anksy · 31 Mar 2007 at 22:40

i like widescreen moniters but if there to big on a computer they look stupid i think, i put my computer on a 27inch and i hated it, i rather use it on my LG 21inch not widescreen,

but my friend has a 20inch widscreen and i love it, in gaming i find it more realistic for some reason

Raikiri · 31 Mar 2007 at 22:42

AmateurJimmy said:
but my friend has a 20inch widscreen and i love it, in gaming i find it more realistic for some reason

The 16:10 ratio is closer to the human field of view than 4:3, probably why

weringo · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:03

Raikiri said:
The 16:10 ratio is closer to the human field of view than 4:3, probably why

What aspect ratio is the "human field of view" just out of interest? If anyone even knows.

Raikiri · 31 Mar 2007 at 23:10

Apparently 2.39:1 is the closest video format used to a humans, don't know exactly what it is though.

Sir Random · 1 Apr 2007 at 03:05

weringo said:
What aspect ratio is the "human field of view" just out of interest? If anyone even knows.

Well the iris is round, so I presume there is no aspect ratio, since the viewing height = viewing width (or you could say the ratio is 1:1).

So, a perfect monitor would need to be circular, and it would also need to be concave with the edges coming forward enough to cater for our almost 180 degree peripheral vision (level with the ears should be plenty

).
I suppose they'll make stuff like that eventually, or a high-res mask/goggles that gives the same affect as 360 degree viewing.

Rebelius · 1 Apr 2007 at 03:22

Sir Random said:
Well the iris is round, so I presume there is no aspect ratio, since the viewing height = viewing width (or you could say the ratio is 1:1).
...

Don't know about you but I've got 2 eyes. So a perfect monitor would be eliptical, not circular. Easy to grasp when you compare your almost 180* side-to-side field of vision to your vertical range, nowhere near 180*

But yes, get a widescreen, they're much better.

fish99 · 1 Apr 2007 at 03:30

foreright said:
He's set it at 1680 by 1050 and moire than happy. Thanks for the help.

If he wants his giant fonts back and to keep 16:10 then he can use 1280*800 btw.

Back to the topic though, if you really only use your monitor for apps and web browsing, then there probably isn't much to gain from widescreen, except maybe when you have multiple windows open. If you game and watch films at all though, widescreen is superior.

mwtb · 1 Apr 2007 at 11:41

On the font size issue... for some reason, people can't quite get their head around the idea that the screen resolution is not the same as the font and icon size. I see LCDs set to some horrible blurred interpolated resolution just to get the text bigger all the time. If your LCD isn't set to its native resolution (except if you're gaming and your card can't handle that res) then you're completely wasting your money on buying a high-res monitor in the first place.

As for the utility of a WS monitor for productivity -- I find them very useful. You can easily have two apps open and visible at once, for instance a spreadsheet and a word-processor so you can refer to one while editing the other. For some tasks, like programming or art-work, where the IDE or applications have multiple windows and tool-bars, I find that WS allows a better layout than a standard aspect ratio. However, if I was making the choice between one 22" WS and, say, two 19" standard aspect monitors, I would choose the dual monitor setup for productivity if I had no intention of gaming or watching video.