I dispise widescreen... - Page 3

nominate him for noob (in a good way) of the week anyone?


anyway...regardless.... i have one question...my last post in this topic about 3/4 down on page 2, my entire post fit on 1 line on a maximized firefox window....can you do that with your 4:3 ??

widescreen is more natural, and my eyes are relaxed longer when using a widescreen vs a non-ws. horizontal eyes require horizontal view.

as far as having both sites open at once is concerned.....who said site #2 had text on it

but...on a simular topic, i like to have firefox and gaim open at the same time and i like to browse while having a life view of my buddy list....i can do that on widescreen and not have to go crazy with the horizontal scrolling in firefox.....can you do that?

It eliminates the scrolling left to right!!! And a wider viewing angle versus narrow. Look at movies when they take out widescreen...The image gets cropped of.

I'm using WSXGA+, and what I like most (beside better widescreen dvd viewing) is that I can have a Word document scaled to 100% on the left of my screen and multiple IM windows open on the right, all totally visible simultaneously.

Hm.

Movies are wider than they are tall.

Most books are taller than they are wide (admittedly, not all). And newspaper columns are downright narrow.

Is text easier to read if it isn't too wide ?

Arguing over something that is 100% personal preference is silly anyway.

xga>wxga>sxga>wxga>uxga>wuxga

Because price, along with technical properties, is used to gauge value.

WSXGA+ is indeed better than SXGA+, no doubt, but is $100+ more.

WXGA on the other hand is much closer in price to SXGA+.

And what do you see here more often than not? People choosing WXGA over SXGA+ to gain that half inch in width but lose that 40% in total pixels. From an objective point of view (especially taken into account that the SXGA+ is usually cheaper), such a decision is misinformed at best.

You can compare purely on technical aspects all you like, it would still be a gross oversight of the way consumers make their purchases.

Are you saying that the first poster might be someone already on the forum who wants to see how much he/she can get people worked up? An interesting theory, that...

I was one of these people you speak of, and i was very informed. i was flip-floping between the 258kao (3000+ wxga) and CL56 (1.7 dothan sxga+) both with same ram, hdd, etc. the CL56 cost nearly $200 more at the time. The CPU being a big thing for me it tilted me in favor of the uniwill..i wantd the 64 bit power. regardless, the screen was important. i went to best buy and looked at all sorts of screens (everything from 12" xga to 17" wuxga) and i found it to be more comfortable for me to look at a widescreen over a period of time vs a standard aspect ratio screen. over the course of use, wide also managed to be quite more useful for both dvd watching, as well as gaming (for those games that support wide) and typical tasks (like having firefox and office open side by side and being able to see both well).

i have a few words for you:
don't bash something you can't speak about from experience

Right, but that is solely because it's a very high resolution (1680 x 1050). The most similar non-widescreen resolution, UXGA (1600 x 1200), could easily to the exact same thing by loosing 80 horizontal pixels but gaining 150 vertical pixels (it would gain a total of 156000 individual pixels to be exact )

Uuh...and what, exactly, makes you think that you couldn't do this with SXGA+, which gives you even more horizontal space???

Or maybe just a random troll...

i don't like ~1280x800 on a 15.4" the higher res's make sense. I would rather rock a widescreen than a standard res..and an sxga+ over regular widescren.. and 1440 and up widescreen owns.

That said, i am pretty happy with regular widescreen format on my SFF laptop.. if i was at a 15 or 17 it would have to be much more.

Well, I didn't mean to come across as hostile. So forgive me if you felt that.

Your main concern was the CPU, and you made the right choice. But for others, when they speak of the importance of the screen and how much "space" they enjoy, and then go get WXGA over SXGA+, it doesn't make sense

I have seen and worked on WXGA screens; they are not much better in terms of freedom of space than your basic XGA. I have also seen and heard the frustration of many people here in college who bought the WXGA thinking "hey, new+more expensive stuff must be better" only to see my standard screen and immediately regret their choice.

"How do I make my screen show everything smaller like yours? All of my stuff looks soo big!" -- I hear this one every time someone uses my computer for the first time and all I can say is "I'm sorry, but it's not possible on your computer." It seems no less than 80% of people here use either WXGA or XGA.

My "argument" is merely this: That SXGA+ does everything WXGA can do and more. And for people to say they want space and then to throw away 47% of their desktop space for a comparably priced widescreen is, indeed, a grievance to themselves.

The solution is for every consumer to better inform themselves to find out what is best suited for what AND to search their heart and mind to find out what they really desire. If you prefer the feel of widescreen, then be prepared to either sacrifice desktop space or shell out 100-150 dollars more.

Who Cares Jesus people your getting up in arms about what kind of screen someone else likes. Do you have to use there screen NO do they have to use yours NO let it go. I thinks wooster is on to something with the troll comment