Widescreen user’s feedback - Page 2

The only real advantage of a widescreen is DVD watching, IMHO, and there are far cheaper DVD players available!! Other than that having messenger or another program "off to the side" vs having it minimized is the only other possible advantage. I have read that the LCD manufacturers went to the wide-screen format because they get more yield out of a sheet of LCD panel, i.e. they can get more screens out of each manufactured sheet. I prefer standard format after comparing them side-by-side.
Andrew
Austin, TX

There are alot of tasks easier to do on a wide screen other then just gaming.
It is easier to scroll vertically then horizontally.
So programming or any other task with long lines of data is better on wide screen.

Also you have more periferal vision side to side then vertically, and so watching that form-factor feels more natural for most tasks.

well, i guess the price + the components judges a lappy's purchasing power.... things like WS or non-ws is just some trivial things that u'll just need to get used to.. Its like touchpad and trackerpoints

No, it's not. 4:3 screens are closer to 1:1 aspect ratio than wide screens and therefore they have more area per diameter length. It ends up being that a 15" 4:3 screen has a larger area than a 15.4" wide screen.

Just something to think about...

When I purchased my 15.4" widescreen, I knew that that a standard 15" had more real estate than the widescreen 15.4". However, I had also been accustomed to working on standard 13.3" and 14.1" laptops.

The widescreen 15.4" is about the same height (8.2" vs. 8.5") as a 14.1", but with more width. To me, running 1280 x 800 on the 15.4" is like running 1024 x 768 on the 14.1" with extra width.

If you're content with a 14.1", than you shouldn't have any problems with a 15.4" widescreen. You're not going to have to scroll vertically any more than you would otherwise. If you need more vertical, then get a standard 15" or widescreen 17". In other words, it all depends on what you're expecting and comparing. After all, there are people out there that happily use 12.1"!!!

I chose a 17" wide screen primarily for presenting images to others, and so I could have more room for application tool palettes. I use Photoshop a lot. In its integrated file browser I can choose to have a larger image preview or more thumbnails on the screen at once. Or, I can have the application open on one side and directories or desktop on the other to drag-and-drop docs into the app. Also I use it (or will use it, first job with the new notebook is tomorrow) to present images to small groups of people who need to make critical decisions about them. I can show more images at once, and two people side by side directly in front of the display can essentially share a straight-on viewing angle. Plus it looks cool.

As a bonus, the 8790 has enough space for a full keyboard with a separate numpad, and there is more room to rest my wrists while typing, even enough to use a mouse to the right of the touchpad if there's no other surface available. I guess I have created a specialized application for myself, for a widescreen notebook. When developing web pages I have seven or eight apps going at once. And when I go into dual monitor mode with my 19" LCD, with the laptop below the standalone, they match up width-wise. There's $.02 for ya.

and for sideways scrolling, its depends what browser you get, opera makes its so u almost have to scroll horizontially, and if vertically is too hard for you, maybe you should take a break from computers for a while

After getting my 4780, I can tell you I'll *never* go back to a small non-widescreen machine, mostly for reasons already mentioned (full-sized keyboard, more horizontal space I can actually use, DVD viewing, and a bunch of other reasons).

A 15" widescreen may be smaller than a 15" standard... and, frankly, 15" widescreens don't interest me that much. But I'll take a 17" widescreen over any 15" machine any time.

I love my widescreen notebook. No regrets whatsoever. I love it more then my standard. There is just so much more room and viewing space. If I had to buy another notebook it would definitly have to be a widescreen.

Wide screens are they way all media is going. (ex hdtv,dvd, and games). In addition Dvds are shot in a few formats 1.85:1 will fill the screen entirely were 2.35:1 will give small black bars. The benefits outweigh the negatives big time. I dont see why anyone would pick a 4:3 full screen over a 1.85:widescreen ever. So to say widescreens are a gimmick is pretty ridiculous.

The whole point of wide aspect screens are that they are more like your natural viewing angle(if you are human).Im all for them, they are the wave of the future.

They are the wave of the future... Tss...

Now how (un)convenient is a widescreen? Umm, let's see.

- Website reading: obviously, they were designed with a 4:3 in mind. But worse than that, reading on a 16:10 screen is not convenient. I don't see what's natural about reading with a wide-angle screen. It's unpleasant and requires extra effort. Unless you resize the window and find out that you need to scroll far more often than with a 4:3 screen. Yahoo! Now that's progress and future.
- E-mail, business, etc.: widescreen is a waste of space. Unless your e-mail titles are 100000 characters long, in which case perhaps it's time to reconsider your e-mail titles.
- Text editing: just like for website reading, writing a text on a wide-screen is not convenient. Side-by-side? Umm... Right. Unless you have a very high res screen, in which case text is microscopic, side-by-side is barely convenient because you have to scroll. Let's be honest, the side-by-side feature is rarely used. Or perhaps you're good enough to write your novel on one side and that Happy Birthday letter to your grandma on the other?
- Picture viewing: my modern digital camera is 4:3. Over 90% wallpapers are 4:3. So it's either cropping or cool black bars and a good part of your screen is useless.
- Gaming: this depends if the game supports 16:10 or not. If it doesn't, you're screwed: black bars again. (Gotta love these!) Or distortion, in which case it's kind of useless to have an expensive video card to get a distorted image.
- DVDs: OK, now here is where widescreen has a point, though there STILL are black bars. Less than with 4:3, but the black bars are still here. Not to mention I have 4:3 DVD content, which looks absolutely bad on a 16:10.

In short, widescreens are really good at nothing. It's a marketing gimmick, a new useless technology that no one asked for. But they look better and they earn you bragging rights (hey, lookie me, I have widescreen and you don't). Granted, it looks good - until you actually try to make use of the "extra" screen estate. I'll try to stay away from widescreens as long as I can, though I'm afraid it will take over eventually.

Microsoft found a way to use the widescreen format, though: in Longhorn, you'll have a huge bar on the right part of the screen that is mainly used to display a huge but ugly analogic clock. Now that's the future (I'll keep my existing taskbar, thanks.)

Sounds like you took that right out of a text book. I bet you havn't even used a widescreen laptop.

First off it isn't a waste of space. Maybe 2 inches or so but if those 2 inches mean that much to you then by all means bitch all you want.

Website viewing is very convenient. I love being able to have multiple windows open at the same time and being able to view them. It is easy to compare things and whatnot.

The taskbar is much much wider allowing it to show much more open windows and toolbars.

Gaming - you are right, widescreen isn't all the great on widescreen but because it is getting more popular, more gaming companies are going to come out with games that are great for widescreen. Eventually..

It isn't a marketing gimmick. I like it, I like having more space on my screen and maybe because I am young, my eyes are better so I don't notice a difference in screen quality. I have a 15" flat panel monitor for my computer and a 15.4" widescreen laptop and I hate going back onto my 15".

At first I honestly didn't like widescreen on my friend's Dell 8600. I hated it but then I saw that my Asus m6n had some problems with the regular 15" so I bought the 15.4" widescreen and I never regret it. Weighing in at 6 pounds with a few more inches on it then the regular one, I'd say it is a great deal. I love it and if I ever buy another laptop it will be a widescreen for sure.

It think it is just all personal preference. You really can't decide if you like it or not until you have tried it.

i have the sager 8790 with the high gloss 1680 x 1050 17" widescreen and comming from only using 4:3 aspect screens, I really can't say it's a huge advantage or disadvantage. To me at least, this may be different for some people. Seems like more often than not I run into problems with it with playing games from time to time (not a huge deal, just stretches image), or just a lot of unused space while at websites or whatever. Personal choice i guess. I'm going to be sending back this 8790 for a CL56 i think, which is standard aspect ratio.

thrillryder does makes some good points though, it's not all bad. It's not a huge differnce though in my opinion, and nothing to make a huge deal over.

I find the widescreen useful in Internet Explorer because you you can keep the search or history sidebar open. Allows real quick access to search results without changing aspect ratio of web pages. It also allows more property columns to be visible in Windows Explorer.

Wrong. Do a Google search if you have doubts.


Wrong again. I own a widescreen laptop for over 2 years now, and after heavy usage I can say it's not for me. I pointed out the reasons.


Make up your mind. Is it a waste of space or not? If it is, then point made.


"And whatnot": go ahead and be more precise. I had to compare about, umm, well I don't remember the last time I had to compare something that I was desperate about having the ability to view side by side.

No comment about office/e-mail/etc., so I guess you agree with me that widescreen is not the panacea here.


Yea, you have a point. It has to have advantages, right?


Happy you could agree with that.

No comment about picture viewing that gives you a choice between cropping, distortion or (here they go again) black lines so I guess you agree with me that widescreen is not the panacea here either.

Well actually you don't...


Not sure what you mean here...


That's funny, I have the exact same computer config than you, and I love going back onto my 15".


Unlucky me

I don't like widescreens and you do, so we both have a point. I find widescreen unproductive, but that's just my conception of productivity. You might work faster with a widescreen.

Website Reading: How in the world is it unpleasant or requires more effort? What, your eyes can't pan left to right one more inch or so? Yes, some websites are designed to work best on a certain resolution, for example 1024x768. But to give you one example of other websites that work great with a widescreen, all I have to do is point here to Notebook forums. Like other message boards, the text will string out further horizontally, so I scroll less than I would with a standard screen.

Email, etc: Like website reading, you end up scrolling less, because the text strings out further before going to the next line. Depending on what program you use, widescreen gives you more room to have preview or header panes to one side, while still having plenty of room for the individual messages.

Text Editing: Side-by-side is harder to read, but you can still use that space for plenty of other things. All the apps in Office have many task panes, etc. that can be opened to one side while viewing the document. This can definitely increase productivity when you get used to taking advantage of them. Another thing that's useful is being able to work in one app, while having say a instant message window off to the side.

Picture viewing: Yes, modern cameras are still 4:3, but so what? So your doing a slideshow and you see some black bars. I think for most people they're not that noticeable. So does it just drive you crazy when you're viewing an 800x600 picture on a 1024x768 screen, since you'd have "wasted space" not only on the sides, but on the top and bottom too? As for wallpaper, there are plenty of sites with free widescreen wallpapers. Yes, they were cropped at some point, but you really can't tell and they're beautiful in their own right.

Gaming: Time waits for no man. More and more titles are coming out with widescreen support. Gaming will soon not be an issue. Anyway, I'm sure there are many out there that don't find "black bars" on the side of the screen that annoying. Plus, depending on the game, stretching the screen (if you really can't stand the "black bars") isn't always that noticable once you get used to it.

The main point is that who cares? I just don't understand why some people persist in bashing widescreens. Far from being "good for nothing", they have many pros. If you don't think so though, just move on. Since when was it wrong to produce "new technology that no one asked for? And when did anyone not appreciate something that just looked better, even if it performed the same. Stay in Pleasantville as long as you wish, but I'll take my color thank you.

Wow, you might even be right here. Wonder why the books don't pan their text on two pages wide... Would be so much convenient to read

No, it isn't more convenient to read. Anyone would agree with that. Reading long lines is NOT convenient, NOT natural and NOT pleasant. Plus, you don't scroll "less" than you would with a standard screen. What you gain in width, you lose in height.


Umm... alright. This is simply not true, but you can say that again since a guy who handles over 100 e-mails per day has probably less experience than you.

Once again, "side-by-side" viewing is not convenient here. The mailboxes on the left, the subjects on the middle, and the e-mail on the right - it is only more truncated than the pleasant and usable standard layout that simply displays more information.


Right, so basically you say "it's worse, but who cares?" This is ill will, plain and simple.


Again, you say "it's worse, but who cares". Well, I do care. Stretching looks kind of horrible. Ill will again. You're just not admitting that widescreen sucks at gaming. Flash news for you: games that will have widescreen support will ALSO support 4:3. So 4:3 is universal where 16:10 is not. I'm sorry if I'm such a loser that I actually still enjoy playing some old 4:3 games.


Whatever you say. The guy asked for information about what is better: widescreen or standard. I give my point of view. You give yours, in a rather aggressive way. Now it's his choice. What I don't like, though, is that in a few years there won't be any way to "move on" because we will all switch to 16:10. If you ask me, that sucks.

who cares, i don't think one is vastly superior than the other. just get what you like personally and suits you best. I really don't notice a huge difference between them, not night and day at least. just because someone likes the widescreen format, and someone else doesn't, who cares? if it suits them-- hey that works. for some people, they will either really want one or the other, i personally think they both have their strong points and not so strong points, but both are fine. at least not worth getting into big arguments about.

aaron

This has unfortunately turned into a pile of drivel. Looking through your opinions (which you most certainly have a right to), you have been sarcastic, patronizing, and condescending. You have a habit of turning other peoples' statements around to suit your points. I have not been agressive, and certainly I don't think anyone on here attacked you or called you a "loser." They're just offering their opinions too, but in a less rude manner.

I'm sure no one will care if you stick to 4:3, because there's nothing wrong in doing so. But you don't have to make it out that others are stupid if they want their widescreens. Now, I'll be the better man and unsubscribe to this thread. Peace.