Monitors Widescreen or Regular 4:3 - which is a better monitor aspect ratio?
- Thread starter ashebouy
- Start date
ragzdiablo
Skilled
Re: Which is a better monitor?
i my self prefer widescreens..
because ive got one..
i my self prefer widescreens..
because ive got one..
Re: Which is a better monitor?
I was asking TheMask this query a couple of days earlier, and he came up with an interesting suggestion
: most websites are designed for a 1024 x 768 layout.. which means with a widescreen, you'd often have quite a bit of real estate being wasted on the sides (unless the website has a fluid layout). I also find it a lot more easier to read text with a longer vertical layout.
So as mentioned if your priority is movies/gaming then a widescreen is your best bet.
But if you simply need one to browse the net, then the regular 4:3 layout is better IMHO.
Edit: The other option is rotating your widescreen panel to a Portrait orientation - if it supports it - for browsing the net.
I was asking TheMask this query a couple of days earlier, and he came up with an interesting suggestion
: most websites are designed for a 1024 x 768 layout.. which means with a widescreen, you'd often have quite a bit of real estate being wasted on the sides (unless the website has a fluid layout). I also find it a lot more easier to read text with a longer vertical layout.So as mentioned if your priority is movies/gaming then a widescreen is your best bet.
But if you simply need one to browse the net, then the regular 4:3 layout is better IMHO.
Edit: The other option is rotating your widescreen panel to a Portrait orientation - if it supports it - for browsing the net.
Widescreen if more than 22" + inches and 16:10 ftw! If u want any size smaller then stick with the regular ones however as mentioned by toxicmind 22" wide is the most popular choice hence best value for money. Try to get a 16:10 one as the market is flooded with cheaper 16:9 versions being touted as 1080P Full HD etc while the fact is they cut the height of the panel to make cost of production lesser. 16:10 in any size is bliss, slightly expensive also and hard to find. Non wide screens in 19-17" are hard to find and expensive as production is less comparatively! Ur best bet imo is a wide 22" with 16:10 ratio if u can afford it or else get cheap BenQ 16:9 22".
thetoxicmind
ex-Mod
These days the square (4:3 AR) displays are only used in offices as most office/productivity related software and other basic tasks are better optimized for the same.
However, manufacturers followed by consumers and businesses are rapidly switching to widescreen displays due to the obvious benefit of the extra real estate to work with.
For home users, gaming, watching movies and other tasks become a treat on a wider display.
A widescreen HD (16:9 AR) display is only recommended if you watch a lot of movies, HD content and play games. It's more like a compromise on the 16:10 AR, catering to specific media content.
So my vote goes for a widescreen (16:10 AR) lcd display !
However, manufacturers followed by consumers and businesses are rapidly switching to widescreen displays due to the obvious benefit of the extra real estate to work with.
For home users, gaming, watching movies and other tasks become a treat on a wider display.
A widescreen HD (16:9 AR) display is only recommended if you watch a lot of movies, HD content and play games. It's more like a compromise on the 16:10 AR, catering to specific media content.
So my vote goes for a widescreen (16:10 AR) lcd display !
thetoxicmind
ex-Mod
salluks said:
^ Yeah, Dell Ultrasharp displays support that.
madnav
Skilled
4:3 displays are phasing out.
the maximum size that you currently get is 17" in 4:3
you get more screen area in 4:3 but that reflects in cost too..
for larger size..4:3 does not remain practical as the horizon increases horizontally as well as vertically.
We are accustomed to move our eyes horizontally with a wider angle than vertically... you will realize that if you work on even 19" 4:3 display..(samsung had one 19/20"). It puts unnecessary strain on eyes even during desktop management.. (since navigation buttons in any browser web/desktop are at upper edge but the taskbar is at the bottom edge; thus forcing us to a wider vertical movement of eyes.)
It may sound illogical but that is what i realized.
the maximum size that you currently get is 17" in 4:3
you get more screen area in 4:3 but that reflects in cost too..
for larger size..4:3 does not remain practical as the horizon increases horizontally as well as vertically.
We are accustomed to move our eyes horizontally with a wider angle than vertically... you will realize that if you work on even 19" 4:3 display..(samsung had one 19/20"). It puts unnecessary strain on eyes even during desktop management.. (since navigation buttons in any browser web/desktop are at upper edge but the taskbar is at the bottom edge; thus forcing us to a wider vertical movement of eyes.)
It may sound illogical but that is what i realized.
vinayaga
Adept
If you ask me, the question is redundant. You just CANNOT buy any 4:3 LCD monitor today of size greater than 17". I have a 20" 4:3 LCD and a 23" 16:9 LCD. The 20" always seems to have more space to do stuff, unless of course when I watch a widescreen movie or play a game. In every other day to day use, I prefer and love the 4:3 monitor.
4:3 monitor with the same diagonal size will have more pixels than a widescreen monitor. 16:10 has roughly 17% less pixels, and 16:9 about 25% less.
4:3 is still better for productivity suites, specially in larger sizes. In addition, high-quality screens are not usually available in widescreen (S-IPS) unless you pay a lot. The Dell 2007FP is an example of a high-quality monitor for Photshop, for example, at a reasonable price, and with more real estate than even a 22" 1680x monitor, and far ahead of 1440x monitors in similar sizes.
As has already been said, it depends on what you want to use the monitor for.
4:3 is still better for productivity suites, specially in larger sizes. In addition, high-quality screens are not usually available in widescreen (S-IPS) unless you pay a lot. The Dell 2007FP is an example of a high-quality monitor for Photshop, for example, at a reasonable price, and with more real estate than even a 22" 1680x monitor, and far ahead of 1440x monitors in similar sizes.
As has already been said, it depends on what you want to use the monitor for.