I was very surprised by the Valve survey, i thought everyone preferred widescreen these days what with the popularity of widescreen T.V.'s, but i can see why people prefere 4:3. However, i've gotten used to widescreen now and wouldn't wanna go back! Then again, i didn't wanna go widescreen in the first place!!
1280*1024>1280*720
Normal Screen>Wide screen.
Personally I don't see any advantage of wide screens against normal screens other than watching movies. (In PCs, not TVs) They just cause disturbing incompatibilities. Widescreen TV broadcasting disturbs me too, as I can't watch it right in my room's 4:3 TV, and a wide one won't fit in it unless it has the same width of my 4:3 TV. (My TV is more or less inside a "box hole")
Having a wider field of vision is nice. However, some games do widescreen mode by just cutting of the top and bottom of the 4:3 image. Most seem to do it properly though (extending the edges)
- Ok, you must admit that was the most creative cussing this site have ever seen -
Personally I don't see any advantage of wide screens against normal screens other than watching movies.
I can see many reasons
Better for image editing (since, for PS at least, the standard menu layout is vertical, same with MMF2), any A/V editing that uses a timeline, wider field of view in games. And of course video playback. And good widescreen monitors have sensors so they rotate as you tilt them, most of my writer friends do this.
Are there actually any benefits of using a non-widescreen display, other than for old games (valid reason).
Widescreens are not wider than normal screens, it's normal screens that are higher than widescreens!
"Better for image editing (since, for PS at least, the standard menu layout is vertical, same with MMF2), any A/V editing that uses a timeline, wider field of view in games."
Normal screens have this advantage for document editing, as most of them are portrait.
"And good widescreen monitors have sensors so they rotate as you tilt them, most of my writer friends do this." That's the only thing I found cool in widescreen. X)
Not related, but my cousin has a HUGE widescreen, 2560*1440 I think, might be bigger, and I don't see the point of having a screen that is THAT big. It takes a few seconds (!) to get from the bottom left corner (Start menu/Application menu/K Menu and Quick launch/application links) to the top right (X button). Now if you mistakenly open the wrong application it takes quite longer to close it.
Originally Posted by LIJI Not related, but my cousin has a HUGE widescreen, 2560*1440 I think, might be bigger, and I don't see the point of having a screen that is THAT big. It takes a few seconds (!) to get from the bottom left corner (Start menu/Application menu/K Menu and Quick launch/application links) to the top right (X button). Now if you mistakenly open the wrong application it takes quite longer to close it.
That's an odd negative considering the glaring positives widescreen has.
Originally Posted by LIJI It wasn't about the fact that it's widescreen but the fact that it's huge.
Yeah, I saw a friend of mine with a monitor with such a high resolution. He took like 3 or so passes with the mouse just to get from 1 side to the other.
Actually the most common resolution within clickers, according to the visitors of my extensions list in July 2008, is 1024*768, used by 36.2% of the visitors.
Then comes 1280*1024 with 18.3%, 1280*800 with 10.9% and 1680x1050 with 9.7%.
(And btw, 800*600 with finally dead with 2.1%. )
67.9% of visitors have Normal Screens where the rest (32.1%) have Wide screens. No visitors with dual screen!
Browsers stats as of July 2008:
Firefox 3.0 (30.1 %)
Firefox 2.0 (28.0 %)
Internet Explorer 7.0 (16.3 %)
Internet Explorer 6.0 (14.5 %)
Opera 9.2 (4.8 %)
Opera 9.5 (2.7 %)
Safari 525.2 (1.4 %)
Firefox 1.0 (0.9 %)
Firefox 1.5 (0.8 %)
Opera 9.0 (0.5 %)
By Rendering Engine:
Gecko (Mozilla, Netscape) (59.8 %)
Internet Explorer (30.9 %)
Opera 53 (8.0 %)
Khtml (Konqueror, Safari) (1.4 %)
But yes, Clicking requires brain, and people with brains are unlikely to use IE.
Widescreen, 1680x1050 for me. I like the extra room for Photoshop etc, and also gaming is much better with a wide FOV, if the developer has bothered to make it that way.
Or maybe, like me, they can't be bothered to get a different browser
Is IE that bad? I mean I only have AVG on my system and never had a virus, in my systems near 2 year long life I've only formatted XP and OSX once each. And that was just for a spring clean!
Ah, that's partly why i asked this question in the first place as i pretty much couldn't find any 4:3 monitors anymore in PC World, Currys, Comet etc. I wondered how far back this went, whether it's only the last 6 months that they have stopped selling (and people have stopped buying) the older non-widescreen monitors/screens.
Of course. They've started killing them.Hey, does anyone remember the "Floppy Disk"? You know, the thing used in the "Save" icon? No one? What about the CRT monitors? Video tapes? Anything?
Yeah i remember video cassettes, audio cassettes, Betamax, LPs, VCRs, 386's, 486's, ZX Sinclairs, they were all great. But they all got succeeded to be fair, despite how fond i (still) am for all of them.
Good point Borgi, it doesn't lend itself to the retro feel of older titles! There's nothing i like more in a retro title than 320x240 screen resolution!
They were even cheap about 5 years ago when i bought my old pc. The model of lcd screen that came with the pc was sold out so i picked up a £49 19 inch crt monitor and ive used it ever since. Came in a bloody big box though.
Advertisement
Post Reply
Edited by the Author.
just the regular iPods. Even Tom Tom's are widescreen!
