The problem lies in that our windows are formatted to scroll down vertically. They don't display two pages at a time in a book format. Until that happens, widescreen monitors will have an excess of horizontal space while lacking vertically.
I wonder why manufacturers phased out the 4:3 so fast. It's like a Toycen conspiracy. Is it cheaper to make 16:9 monitors? Luckily I bought a used 4:3 Dell a couple of years ago...it's served me well to this day. I really hate the 16:9 monitors too.
I have a "widescreen" don't know if 16:10 or 16:9 next to a 4:3 at work, for my set up. Most of my TERMINAL sessions are on the 4:3 and the Photoshops, Outlook, and web browser windows are on my 16:9, because I hate scrolling. I don't scroll much with Terminal sessions. I have the TERMINAL monitor displaying for my boss and public, and the private one is the 16:9, where I can watch p0r--I mean, er, leisure and non-work activities. At home, it's a 4:3 still, but I don't do much terminal session stuff there, unless I have to RDP to work. I mostly browse and do video editing on the 4:3 at home. I don't need Widescreen and my 4:3 still works at home, so there's no need to change it now. I guess SCROLLING is where the 16:9 hurts. I HATE SCROLLING and design less cluttered web pages thinking the user has to scroll less. Long live 4:3!
The thing fueling our transition to 16:9, is cheaply available panels. End of story. Performance stages, and then movies have almost always been wide format. Books and newspapers have not. Above the fold of a broadsheet newspaper is....................4:3. Search for google results then notice the MAJORITY of your screen is blank? (on a 16:9) That is because it is easier to skim through results when you just have to move your eyes down across the page. If they gave them as spread out text across the page you would have a much harder time skimming.
As I mentioned before, widescreens were experimentally determined to give more gains, esp. in the larger sizes. But 16:9s do have less screen area than their counterpart 4:3 with the same diagonal. Proof using the Pythagorean theorem: v^2 = l^2 + w^2 v - vertical, l - length, w - width Given a 17" vertical, the equation for 4:3 is, l = 4s, w = 3s 17^2 = (4s)^2+(3s)^2 289 = (16+9)s^2 11.56 = s^2 3.4 = s l = 13.6, w = 10.2 A = 138.72 sq. inches For 16:9, l = 16s, w = 9s 289 = (256+81)s^2 289/337 = s^2 0.92605 = s l = 14.817, w = 8.3344 A = 123.49 sq. inches
1. That's a calculation, not a proof. 2. 3rd grade ended a while back --------> http://www.displaywars.com/
I am extremely happy that you have the ability to carry out those calculations and also love 16:9 monitors. You don't have to provide coherent arguments to back up your feelings. Besides there are more of your kind now. I do feel sorry for your mousewheel
How exactly does a 4:3/5:4 display allow you to be more productive? What programs benefit from this? I use Word a lot, and I much prefer a widescreen monitor so I can have a single document displaying two pages side-by-side or have two documents next to each other to compare. I can display more information with 16:9. Excel is also better with a widescreen monitor. The only thing I regularly use that would benefit from a vertical display is the internet.
Feels cramped to me when I do that. No one working with physical paper sits two sheets perfectly next to each other.
I avoid working with physical paper and do all my work online. Do you print out emails and meeting invitations, too? Technology is leaving you in its dust, old man!
I was making a comparison showing that it is uncomfortable to work like that. Multiple displays are a much better solution.
