StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Using an LCD at anything but the native resolution sacrifices a lot of the sharpness and clarity for which LCDs are so beloved.

Alyeska wrote:Compare 1280x960 and 1440x900. For marginaly less vertical space you get significantly more horizontal space.

Well, yeah, in that instance you're getting significantly more horizontal real-estate than you're sacrificing in vertical space, but I don't see how that's relevent to the examples I provided of two 20" monitors.

And using a monitor at full resolution on anything less then a monster monitor is going to create something absurdly small and hard to see. For those of us who don't like having a desktop that requires a magnifying class to read, we use smaller resolutions.

I think your laptop is coloring your opinion because in my experience modern laptops often have significantly higher native resolutions than similarly-sized desktop monitors do. I note that there are laptops with 15" screens that have native resolutions of 1680x1050. Yeah, you're right, that's pretty tiny on a fifteen inch display, but the monitors I posted are 20" and are significantly bigger than most laptop displays.

EDIT: Just noticed your laptop is a 17", and it looks like there are 17" laptop displays that go all the way up to 1920x1080.

If I had the money and space, I'd get one of these: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.a ... 6824133165

Currently my 19" CRT will have to suffice: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,99703 ... ticle.html (and it takes up way too much space on my desk already).

I definitely "cheat" and have a 4:3 monitor for normal and office use, and a widescreen monitor for entertainment purposes. I'm not really bothered by switching between the two.

I just got myself a 17'' widescreen iMac, coming from a previous 15'' 4x3 LCD monitor. I found quite nice, and the extra space on each side is useful to put other programs and/or windows, toolboxes, etc, to be more handy. My Dell laptop has a 4x3 screen, but not that is such a trouble, anyway.

I have two 19 inch LCDs, I've yet to try the 19inch widescreen as a production station, but it's pretty good for gaming.

I'm running a 17" widescreen Dell 16:10

It's amazing for movies and games (well, games that support it), and would prefer it over a 4:3. However, anything over 19", I prefer 4:3.

16:10 is a bitch for wallpapers, though.

Uraniun235 wrote:I think your laptop is coloring your opinion because in my experience modern laptops often have significantly higher native resolutions than similarly-sized desktop monitors do. I note that there are laptops with 15" screens that have native resolutions of 1680x1050. Yeah, you're right, that's pretty tiny on a fifteen inch display, but the monitors I posted are 20" and are significantly bigger than most laptop displays.

EDIT: Just noticed your laptop is a 17", and it looks like there are 17" laptop displays that go all the way up to 1920x1080.

2048x1536

And I elect to use 1440x900.

Alyeska wrote: 2048x1536

And I elect to use 1440x900.

Aren't you bothered by the interpolation?
i mean 90% of the time not using the native resolution is giving a weird result

Mobius wrote:

Alyeska wrote: 2048x1536

And I elect to use 1440x900.

Aren't you bothered by the interpolation?
i mean 90% of the time not using the native resolution is giving a weird result

My preferred solution is to use larger fonts. In both Windows and Linux, you can switch to high-dpi fonts for improved readability at max resolution. As for interpolation, the quality of interpolation varies quite a bit between manufacturers. I got a cheap LG flat-screen monitor for my computer and I knew beforehand that LG is a budget monitor with shitty interpolation. But that doesn't really matter because I run it at native resolution. However, some of the better monitors have greatly improved interpolation.

Mobius wrote:

Alyeska wrote: 2048x1536

And I elect to use 1440x900.

Aren't you bothered by the interpolation?
i mean 90% of the time not using the native resolution is giving a weird result

What weird results? 1440x900 looks wonderful on this monitor. Clarity and detail that my 17" 4x3 desktop LCD lacked. Not to mention when I play games that lack widescreen support, I already deal with built in distortion.

And in reality 1440x900 is the max resolution. If I go for higher resolutions the screen gets larger then the monitor will display and I have to scroll inside of the monitor to see anything.

well i put my 1440*900 to 1280*768 (or my samsung LCD 1280*1024 to 1024*768) i find that everything looks kind of fuzzy and more tiring to my eyes.

Ok, you guys convinced me: just purchased a 19" Widescreen monitor with 16:10 ratio (1440 x 900). So far, I'm liking it, although I expect I'll need some time to grow accustomed to it. I got it for a good price too: $159, and no mail-in rebates!

I have no preference for either, I use a 4:3 at home and both widescreen & conventional aspect at work. It's all the same to me.

Alyeska wrote:And using a monitor at full resolution on anything less then a monster monitor is going to create something absurdly small and hard to see. For those of us who don't like having a desktop that requires a magnifying class to read, we use smaller resolutions.

Why don't you just increase the text size (aka Large Fonts) to do so? Many laptop manufacturers do so for their UXGA displays.

And in reality 1440x900 is the max resolution. If I go for higher resolutions the screen gets larger then the monitor will display and I have to scroll inside of the monitor to see anything.

I think he thought you meant that your monitor could natively drive 2048x1536. As for weird results, driving an LCD at non-integer divisions of the native LCD requires interpolation, which makes things look "fuzzy".

I use a widescreen 1900x1200 24" iMac C2D at work and I find it fantastic, especially when you are dealing with a large amount of Photoshop images. My laptops (a MacBook Pro 15.4" and a Dell Inspiron 15") are also both Widescreen and I appreciate the aspect ratio even more on a smaller screen.
At this point I would never buy another 4:3 monitor again, I'm just too used to the wide aspect ratio.

Note: I have also tried using proprietary monitors with even WIDER aspect ratios (my father has a couple of Sony machines with super-wide monitors) and there is a limit to how much wide I can tolerate. These super wides just don't have enough vertical resolution for most things and some programs look really wonky on them.

Uraniun235 wrote:

Braedley wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:The thing is that horizontal real estate is more valuable than vertical real-estate. A lot of media really needs a certain width in order to be displayed properly, whereas inadequate height only means that you need to use the scroll wheel on your mouse. That's why I prefer widescreen. I can put two windows side-by-side and actually get work done.

I totally agree. Comparing code (weather to translate from one language to another, or to do copy/pastes of sections) really requires that the two windows be side by side. With a 4:3, you can't do that. You can stack them and use the scroll wheel, but you often don't get to see enough of the code. With 16:9, each window is side by side and takes up 50% of the screen, and it's the perfect width for coding.

Dell 20.1" 4:3
Native resolution of 1600x1200

Dell 20" widescreen
Native resolution of 1680x1050

The 4:3 has more area overall at the mere cost of... 80 pixels horizontal. Is the jump between 1600 and 1680 pixels really the threshold at which putting two windows side by side is workable?

I see you're missing the point. You should also compare two monitors that actually have close to the same area, not a pair that are off by 20 square inches. How about comparing a 20" widescreen with a 19" 4:3? That would be a fair test.

In any case, it is possible to place two windows of code side by side on a 4:3 running at a decent resolution and still do work, but it is far easier to do that on a widescreen monitor. Having one side of the window far longer than the other makes going through the code harder on the eyes. You see too much code, and it's easy to loose your place. There also needs to be enough horizontal room to fit a full line of code on the screen, which can very between 80 characters and 160. How do I know all this? I am getting paid to write code. On a 24" iMac. I use this technique on a regular basis. I have yet to be able to do this effectively on a 4:3 monitor, and I don't ever expect to be able to.

Come back when you are coding two large programs that are similar, need a lot of the same code, but have to be distinct, and then, maybe, we can talk.

phongn wrote:

Alyeska wrote:And using a monitor at full resolution on anything less then a monster monitor is going to create something absurdly small and hard to see. For those of us who don't like having a desktop that requires a magnifying class to read, we use smaller resolutions.

Why don't you just increase the text size (aka Large Fonts) to do so? Many laptop manufacturers do so for their UXGA displays.

Why would I do that? Everything is the exact size I like it as it stands.

Alyeska wrote:

phongn wrote:Why don't you just increase the text size (aka Large Fonts) to do so? Many laptop manufacturers do so for their UXGA displays.

Why would I do that? Everything is the exact size I like it as it stands.

Well, at that point you'd have everything at the size you'd like but with increased resolution (less jagged text, even accounting for antialiasing).

Ok, I will state this again. If I try and go higher then 1440, things get screwy. The actual display screen gets bigger while the monitor does not. What I am saying is that its like showing too large an image in Internet Explorer. I have to scroll to every side to get anything.

Next, wallpapers. Most of my wallpapers are far smaller then that. So even if I could get to max size without issue, I would have tiny wallpapers.

My screensaver can't handle resolutions that large.

And finaly, I like the resolution I am at. No issues with anything being jagged, the size is absolutely perfect for what I desire.

Alyeska wrote:Ok, I will state this again. If I try and go higher then 1440, things get screwy. The actual display screen gets bigger while the monitor does not. What I am saying is that its like showing too large an image in Internet Explorer. I have to scroll to every side to get anything.

Next, wallpapers. Most of my wallpapers are far smaller then that. So even if I could get to max size without issue, I would have tiny wallpapers.

My screensaver can't handle resolutions that large.

And finaly, I like the resolution I am at. No issues with anything being jagged, the size is absolutely perfect for what I desire.

Then, quite simply, your monitor's native resolution is 1440 and it cannot go higher then that. What you are seeing is that your graphics card CAN go higher then that and the monitor is coping with that the only way it can. You're terminology is wrong. The native resolution (or hell, just resolution) of an LCD is the highest resolution before you get the scrolling effect.

LCDs don't support non-native resolutions well. Try using 1024 on your monitor to see why people are surprised at you. You would have the same effect if your monitor really was capable of 2048 and you were using 1440.

I have a 17" MacBook Pro for work, and I have a 20" widescreen Dell LCD attached to my G5. Widescreen is a huge improvement. Then again, that's because I use Mac OS X, which has a completely different UI philosophy from Windows. Windows users with widescreen monitors just maximize everything as they would with a 4:3 screen, and that completely negates almost every advantage widescreen offers. I use my widescreen to display multiple windows simultaneously, not to make a single window be wider.

mmar wrote:

Alyeska wrote:Ok, I will state this again. If I try and go higher then 1440, things get screwy. The actual display screen gets bigger while the monitor does not. What I am saying is that its like showing too large an image in Internet Explorer. I have to scroll to every side to get anything.

Next, wallpapers. Most of my wallpapers are far smaller then that. So even if I could get to max size without issue, I would have tiny wallpapers.

My screensaver can't handle resolutions that large.

And finaly, I like the resolution I am at. No issues with anything being jagged, the size is absolutely perfect for what I desire.

Then, quite simply, your monitor's native resolution is 1440 and it cannot go higher then that. What you are seeing is that your graphics card CAN go higher then that and the monitor is coping with that the only way it can. You're terminology is wrong. The native resolution (or hell, just resolution) of an LCD is the highest resolution before you get the scrolling effect.

LCDs don't support non-native resolutions well. Try using 1024 on your monitor to see why people are surprised at you. You would have the same effect if your monitor really was capable of 2048 and you were using 1440.

Yes, I realize this now. I didn't test a higher resolution until this thread came about. I happened to like the 1440 resolution that much

As long as we're talking about aspect ratios, can anyone explain to me why the industry felt it necessary to make products for both 16:10 and 16:9? I mean seriously, what the fuck?