New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

I dispise widescreen... - Page 2

post #21 of 55
3/17/05 at 5:15pm
Quote:
??

WSXGA+ is 1680 x 1050
And he put WSXGA, not WSXGA+, at 1680x1050. It's misleading
Reply
Reply
post #22 of 55
3/17/05 at 5:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by B Nietsnie
And he put WSXGA, not WSXGA+, at 1680x1050. It's misleading
You're being a pedant.

What he's effectively trying to say is, there's no point having a super resolution on a screen that's only as high as a standard 14" LCD (ie. when using a 15.4" widescreen) if you want it to appear as large as on standard 15.1".
Reply
Reply
post #23 of 55
3/17/05 at 5:24pm
adding my thoughts, i love widescreen...i can view two full websites at once side by side...its great!
Reply
Reply
post #24 of 55
3/17/05 at 5:34pm
I've recently viewed my friend's new dell m70 with wuxga and have to say that it isn't as bad as I was led to believe. In fact I like it. Yes, it is small, but maybe my eyes aren't that bad, although I'm no teenager either. For what we do the added resolution is great, and I'm certainly going to be looking for a laptop with wsxga or wuxga. I like widescreen for the above reasons, dvd watching, two webpages, etc etc. I have a 20" 1600x1200 lcd at home that I like as well, but at the places I work they use wide screen lcds. Gotta love 'em

Tellerve
Reply
Reply
post #25 of 55
3/17/05 at 6:21pm
For me, it's not about the wide/standard argument. It's usually the "WXGA is better than SXGA+" I see a lot of that bothers me.

For entertainment, it's all about the form & size -- motion blur + dithering patches up a lot of things.

For work, it's all about the number of pixels you have -- text/widgets/graphics can only be so few pixels before they get uncomfortable.

And dollar for dollar, you get more desktop area with stardard dimension screens.

This is why I see, in general use, stardard being the better choice.

[and for those who say wide is more natural because we read left to right: You are wrong. Go look at studies on graphical design, especially newspaper design. You'll find that people prefer vertical columns of text over horizontal strips.]
Reply
Reply
post #26 of 55
3/17/05 at 6:35pm
i like my widescreen, and when i briefly switch to my desktop (17" crt set at sxga resolution) it just feels freaky. widescreen owns the world
Reply
Reply
post #27 of 55
3/17/05 at 6:42pm
Yep. Non widescreen is abnormal. Does not conform the natural human field of vision.
Dont konw why they designed it like that... probably cause at that point engineers were still obsessed with perfect symmetry or something.
Reply
Reply
post #28 of 55
3/17/05 at 6:53pm
Quote:
And dollar for dollar, you get more desktop area with stardard dimension screens.
You get more physical room, but less number of pixels.
Reply
Reply
post #29 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by B Nietsnie
You get more physical room, but less number of pixels.
I could have a 1" (inch) x 1" (inch) screen with a super woopydoop resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels. But could you read off of it?
Reply
Reply
post #30 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeafsBlow29
adding my thoughts, i love widescreen...i can view two full websites at once side by side...its great!
Oh yeah, cool. You read both at the same time too?
Reply
Reply
post #31 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:27pm
Quote:
I could have a 1" (inch) x 1" (inch) screen with a super woopydoop resolution of 4096 x 4096 pixels. But could you read off of it?
Yes. Who couldn't? In fact, it would be much nicer to read text off a screen with that resolution - more clarity.

But that's not what my post was about. All the current resolutions you can read off of. I was just commenting that although the physical area of the screen in increased 4:3 aspect ratio, your screen real estate goes down as their are less pixels/
Reply
Reply
post #32 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:29pm
i have you all beat! my desktop res is 2560x1024!!!!! hahahah
Reply
Reply
post #33 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:31pm
Cheater!
Reply
Reply
post #34 of 55
3/17/05 at 7:39pm
*recklessly heading into the fray with no regard for my own safety*
I like the idea of widescreen, especially when watching movies and multitasking. If you do not do either of these activities that much, it will have less of an appeal to you. I realize that there is less total screen area, but there is not that much of a difference. Also, as this is an issue that seems to be polarizing people, remember that it's really not that important. Get the type of screen that works for you. You do not have to change everyone to your position. Let's just enjoy the screen types we like.
Reply
Reply
post #35 of 55
3/17/05 at 9:26pm
evilinside300, I, for one agree with you. Why is everybody raving about 1280 pixels (WXGA, the most common widescreen resolution) wide when they could be having even more open and/or larger at 1400 pixels? (SXGA+, the most common non-widescreen resolution above XGA). Who knows...?

And, BTW, you may even get charged more for WXGA than SXGA+! (Take Asus M6Bne [WXGA] over M6ne [SXGA+] for example.

Unless your laptop is primarily used for DVDs or for the few games that actually support widescreen, I think it is a joke to pay more for WXGA than for SXGA+. Now, if it is WSXGA+ (1680x1050) or WUXGA (1900x1050), then we're talking!
Reply
Reply
post #36 of 55
3/17/05 at 9:35pm
Quote:
And, BTW, you may even get charged more for WXGA than SXGA+! (Take Asus M6Bne [WXGA] over M6ne [SXGA+] for example.
Uhh... its only $25 more at most....
Reply
Reply
post #37 of 55
3/17/05 at 10:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tommi
Then you have two very peculiar machines, which defy the laws of Euclidian geometry. You can't have a laptop that has a 15.4" diagonal and 16:10 aspect ratio which has the same height as a screen with a 15" diagonal and 4:3 aspect ratio. Either you are wrong, you are using non-Euclidian geometry, or your laptops have been designed by highly advanced aliens.
Just compared it to a friends 15" desktop LCD also and my widescreen is indeed the same vertical as his desktop LCD.
Reply
Reply
post #38 of 55
3/17/05 at 10:13pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by B Nietsnie
You get more physical room, but less number of pixels.

No. WXGA is usually 20-50 dollars more than SXGA+ in configurations where both is available.

SXGA+ has 40% more pixels and is cheaper.
Reply
Reply
post #39 of 55
3/17/05 at 11:01pm
Quote:
No. WXGA is usually 20-50 dollars more than SXGA+ in configurations where both is available.

SXGA+ has 40% more pixels and is cheaper.
O.....k.....? I don't see how that had anything to do with what I posted. I was talking about widescreen vs non-widescreen... I didn't once mention price.
Reply
Reply
post #40 of 55
3/17/05 at 11:32pm
Has anyone else noticed that the original poster joined today, has only one post, and made it on a somewhat controversial topic?
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Notebook Forums - General