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: kony on 23 Dec 2009 16:36 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:56:50 -0000, "GT" <ContactGT_rem_ov_e_(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"~misfit~" <sore_n_happy(a)yahoo-nospam.com.au> wrote in message >news:hgifsd$825$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Somewhere on teh intarwebs Sjouke Burry wrote: >>> Bug Dout 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. >>> >>> Now why dont they do that in newspapers? >>> And even on websites you find narrow columns >>> of text. >>> So its not as natural as you suggest. >> >> They do it that way with text, in columns, so you can go back and find the >> start of the next line easilly. If you've ever seen anything written with >> a few hundred letters to the line you'll know what I mean. > >Ahh - you mean like a book - the lines are the full width of a tall and thin >page. Actually wait a minute, I don't have any trouble reading a portrait >document either on paper or on my screen. In fact I prefer a screen that can >display a full portrait document, rather than having to scroll up and down >all the time. > It is generally accepted that once the # of characters per line go beyond a certain amount it becomes more difficult to read someting. What that # is depends on who you ask, generally it is 90, 80, even 60 characters or less per line. I agree it sometimes seems preferrable to have a lot of content on a screen without scrolling, but part of the issue there is that the monitors are wider than taller. You could have same content without scrolling if only the monitor were rotated on most webpages.
From: kony on 23 Dec 2009 16:40 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 09:41:14 -0800, "Cliff" <whidbey.us(a)gmail.com> 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. > >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. > It's not far easier necessarily, it all depends on the dot pitch. Granted, unfortunately today's cost effective larger diagonal screens come in widescreen format, but suppose a ~24", 1920 x 1440, or 2048 x 1536, 4:3 ratio display... you could have readable text, side by side document or app windows viewable, and not lose so much vertical real-estate.
From: kony on 23 Dec 2009 16:43 On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:01:53 -0000, "GT" <ContactGT_rem_ov_e_(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >"Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in >message news:hgku8p$kk2$2(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> On 19-Dec-09 03:54, Gary Brown wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Most monitors nowadays are widescreen. What is the advantage? >>> I would prefer to get taller, not wider. >> >> 1. hd movie/tv format > >Not required for most PC users > >> 2. workspace > >Wasted workspace - Most letters and documents are not widescreen. > >Neither of these 2 points support usage of widescreen displays on a PC. > > >Help me please - I'm turning into Rod Speed. I'll start insulting people >next and calling them children etc. > Unfortunately we are stuck with widescreen on most larger monitors these days, so although I would rather have more usable vertical workspace, I'm still liking having more horizontal workspace at ever plummeting prices per total pixel count and screen area.
From: GT on 24 Dec 2009 05:23 "kony" <spam(a)spam.com> wrote in message news:lj35j5lerknrn0ignp4pv4pj6t0deptfaf(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 17:01:53 -0000, "GT" > <ContactGT_rem_ov_e_(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>"Man-wai Chang to The Door (24000bps)" <toylet.toylet(a)gmail.com> wrote in >>message news:hgku8p$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. >> > > Unfortunately we are stuck with widescreen on most larger > monitors these days, so although I would rather have more > usable vertical workspace, I'm still liking having more > horizontal workspace at ever plummeting prices per total > pixel count and screen area. I was just having a day of grumbles - ignore me! I still don't like widescreen for a PC tho - I have a large TV for widescreen films and a PC to do my work, which is portrait text based!
From: Jim T. on 24 Dec 2009 09:09
On Wed, 23 Dec 2009 16:33:04 -0500, kony <spam(a)spam.com> wrote: >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. My motivation is non-technical. There are times when it is convenient to have two apps open and visible at the same time, particularly when I am copying bits of data from one to the other. |