First LCD was years ago when they were all 5:4 ratio 17" and 19" 1280X1024 resolution. Still don't know why LCD's were not 4:3 but made it a point to get a bigger one in the early 2000's when they dropped under $1000 and it was an awesome 4:3 1600x1200 model. Now the panel is extremely dated because I have been holding off with all of the wide screens they sell now. I have been shopping and it seems the TV market is destroying computer monitors. People think 1080P is awesome for some reason now but for a monitor that is the same crap we had in 2000. The majority are 16:9 ratio instead of the proper 16:10. I would prefer 4:3 but realize that ship has sailed. You lose so much on such a monitor and only gain increases in games and movies, which is dump because the gamers still prefer TFT instead of IPS because it is so much faster. tl;dr if you are about to buy a monitor, make it a 16:10 instead of a cheap, "could have been a TV" 16:9.
I don't think most of the public has a clue what you're talking about and will just wait for the one with the biggest sale sign or just flip a coin. Or they'll just wait for a Black Friday sale that says they're getting a deal, so it must be the truth and buy it. :grin:
I feel your pain. Vertical real estate is essential. Also, I prefer having dual monitors, side by side. I highly recommend this one: Dell U2412 24" IPS Panel. 1920 x 1200/16:10 ratio http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0..._m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=023G6ZB7T0Z921VAJC12
Unless you're doing graphical work or photo-editing, spend a little more for the Dell U2410 or a lot more for the newer NEC/LaCie/Eizos. http://www.amazon.com/Dell-UltraSharp-U2410-Performance-DisplayPort/dp/B00302DNZ4
Agreed. Still using my 4:3 15" Hyundai monitor because I refuse to go to 16:9. Vertical matters more than horizontal.
16:9 is popular now because the general public associates that with HD..and they been taught that HD is good! i been looking for a 24" IPS monitor too.
I have a 24" HP LP2475w H-IPS monitor, with a 1920x1200/16:10 aspect ratio, that I dearly love. It pivots, so you can have as much vertical real estate as you are likely to need. The color is simply beautiful after it's calibrated, and it looks great from almost any angle. Playing Starcraft II on the thing is a joy! I've had it for 2-3 years and really scored at $400 bucks. I don't know if they're available now, or not, and if they're that cheap if they are (I seriously doubt it).
What's so proper about 16:10? HD movies are 16:9. Widescreen is good. We see more horizontal than vertical by virtue of our eyes being side-by-side than on top of each other. LCDs are so cheap now that buying a larger sized widescreen with the same vertical as your former 4:3 isn't such a big deal.
Well then it makes no sense to me that high resolution, slow, IPS monitors that they don't like to use are 16:9. Which is killed by having widescreen monitors. Right now I have a two 19's on each side of my 20" 4:3, that would be impossible with widescreens. I have been looking at the HP ZR24w and HP ZR2740w.
And if he is doing normal productivity tasks he is skipping past 8-12 inches of nothing to go from one to the other. 16:10 is a decent compromise that keeps vertical real estate but still allows for wider work. It is slightly wider than the 3:2 aspect ratio that is most commonly used for photography. Not such a big deal in price I guess but what have I gained with new technology? Lets compare: I would have to buy a 25" 1920x1080 I get the same vertical height as a 20.1 inch 4:3. But I get punished with 6 inches of desk-wasting horizontal space per monitor. And it isn't just desk space, most of the internet and applications are format for 4:3, so the sides of most widescreen monitors are barren and useless. This make the transition from one monitor to another harder than it has to be. Ask yourself why most laptops are all 16:10? Those panels are purpose built for computers, not the monitor/television hybrid out now. If they were 16:9, roomier keyboards would be much easier to fit into 11 inch notebooks, but they would be terrible.
Interesting concept. Allow me to retort. I love home theater and I have a huge plasma 16:9 screen for it. Seems to me though I mostly do reading, creating, and scrolling on my computer, and the format of an invention that has been out a while called "books" seem to go against your theory. You see when reading and interacting, it is more comfortable to move slightly down each line then to scroll then entire width across.
I was thinking about the ipad/9" tablet in your reply. Those days are gone dude. Even if gamers didn't drive the cutting edge, general consumers like the "cinematic" quality. But I totally agree. Laptops with 16:9 really bug the heck out of me. I don't know how people can be productive with that ratio and a small screen but that's mho. At least LCDs/LEDs are getting cheaper and larger. Maybe quality can be an added benefit from the economies of scale involved.
I never noticed I've been quoting just one guy. It's not a theory. It's been studied and it's what's fueling the transition to widescreens. You see more horizontal, that's a fact. Even when you read, you see a horizontal line of text. You don't look at an entire page of a book. That widescreen can probably fit two pages side-by-side.
I'm with you on this one. My first laptop had a 4:3 screen and ran a 1400x1050 resolution. By the time it died and I was forced to buy another one, there simply weren't any 4:3 laptops anymore. I was pissed, because I valued the vertical space more than the horizontal space. I had to get a huge 17" laptop just to get the same number of vertical pixels that I had with the smaller laptop (1680x1050). I guess I'm over it by now, but I do remember those good times...
