Why Widescreen?
in [Hardware]
|
Prev: Firefox 3.5.5 freezes the Athlon X4 620 based box on Asus M4A79motherboard
Next: What are these spam posts doing here?
From: GT on 23 Dec 2009 11:57 "Cliff" <whidbey.us(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hgh25g$j6f$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Gary Brown" <garyjbrown(a)charter.net> wrote >> Most monitors nowadays are widescreen. What is the advantage? > > Mutiple programs open and available at the same time. I can open word and > excell at the same time, resize the windows and copy and paste data twice > as fast (or more) and still keep an eye on my e-mail for new mail. > > Cliff Funny, I can do that on my 4:3 screen too - its 1600x1200 pixels, so ample room for 2 full portrait document side by side. This is not a supporting reason for widescreen PC displays.
From: GT on 23 Dec 2009 12:01 "Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:hgku8p$kk2$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... > On 19-Dec-09 03:54, Gary Brown wrote: >> Hi, >> >> Most monitors nowadays are widescreen. What is the advantage? >> I would prefer to get taller, not wider. > > 1. hd movie/tv format Not required for most PC users > 2. workspace Wasted workspace - Most letters and documents are not widescreen. Neither of these 2 points support usage of widescreen displays on a PC. Help me please - I'm turning into Rod Speed. I'll start insulting people next and calling them children etc.
From: Cliff on 23 Dec 2009 12:41 >>> Most monitors nowadays are widescreen. What is the advantage? >> >> Mutiple programs open and available at the same time. I can open word and >> excell at the same time, resize the windows and copy and paste data twice >> as fast (or more) and still keep an eye on my e-mail for new mail. >> >> Cliff > > Funny, I can do that on my 4:3 screen too - its 1600x1200 pixels, so ample > room for 2 full portrait document side by side. This is not a supporting > reason for widescreen PC displays. Sure, at 1600 x 1200 anything is possible. But from experience it is far easier with a widescreen. Then what you have on the screen is actually visible and the text is not is not the size of ant tracks. As for not being a supporting reason that may be your opinion but one that is not supported by the facts and direct experience. All of our office systems have been switched to wide screen for this reason alone.
From: DevilsPGD on 23 Dec 2009 14:41 In message <006855e3$0$4676$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> "GT" <ContactGT_rem_ov_e_(a)hotmail.com> was claimed to have wrote: >"William" <ThisIsPrivate(a)NoAddress.com> wrote in message >news:k3vni55959uvv62utkno9im26eftlr8ocb(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:59:20 -0800, Bug Dout <buggsy2(a)mailinator.com> >> wrote: >> >>>It's more natural for people to scan (move their eyes) side-to-side than >>>up and down...hence the shift to screen wider in both TV and monitors. >> >> Also, it is exactly how we see.. our natural vision is a kind of super >> widescreen. > >Really? My eyes are round! > Your eyes might be, but your field of vision isn't.
From: kony on 23 Dec 2009 16:33
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 11:41:30 -0800, DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam(a)crazyhat.net> wrote: >In message <006855e3$0$4676$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com> "GT" ><ContactGT_rem_ov_e_(a)hotmail.com> was claimed to have wrote: > >>"William" <ThisIsPrivate(a)NoAddress.com> wrote in message >>news:k3vni55959uvv62utkno9im26eftlr8ocb(a)4ax.com... >>> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:59:20 -0800, Bug Dout <buggsy2(a)mailinator.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>It's more natural for people to scan (move their eyes) side-to-side than >>>>up and down...hence the shift to screen wider in both TV and monitors. >>> >>> Also, it is exactly how we see.. our natural vision is a kind of super >>> widescreen. >> >>Really? My eyes are round! >> > >Your eyes might be, but your field of vision isn't. True... but it isn't a 16:9 rectangle either, that's just a nice ratio for a cheap screen plastered onto the end wall of a movie theater. |