icecaveman Posted September 5, 2005 Share Posted September 5, 2005 OK I just made it up quick since I hate all the whining we constantly hear from people who don't understand the idea of the "Longhorn/Vista" sidebar. Those people with low resolution displays and don't get the fact you are NOT forced to have the sidebar enabled. Feel free to flame... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DigitalE Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 Not all of us have huge-o-gantic widescreen 3 billion x 2 billion pixel monitors. I do have a 1280x1024 monitor, though, and in my opinion, the sidebar doesn't really take up that much space. I would love to have a sidebar on Vista. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John S. Veteran Posted September 6, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 6, 2005 1920x1080? :laugh: Please, my 17" pc is set to 1024X768, my iMac is using 1440X900. Look through the polls, I know I've seen a resolution poll in the not too distant past. Not many use 1920. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icecaveman Posted September 6, 2005 Author Share Posted September 6, 2005 And you don't expect them to be using them in the coming years? I can't stand 1600x1200 and I want to upgrade my LCD to a 24" one. Actually the HDTV resolutions are quite common in the graphics industry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndurilShards Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 right on :happy: I like the sidebar I always run at 1600 by 1200 and there is so much wasted space where sites have nothing I always put diff programs in another virtual window anyway I don't like 2 working programs in the same space as they distract Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b0m8er Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I agree, sidebar is optional and nobody will force you to use it. But it'd look perfect on my 1920x1200 screen :D :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
golazo Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 i don't really like the look of the side bar much, but i do have the room for it on my screen (1280x1024) if they can make it look better and more useful than the earlier alpha builds i'll probably use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
canbeli Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I'll get a super wide screen for sidebar, or no sidebar at all. Good idea, but not very useful to me. And distracting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lexcyn Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I'm happy with 1280 x 1024 ... I don't really feel like shelling out over $900 CAD on a widescreen LCD monitor. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turkishdelight Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I don't care too much if the sidebar's enabled, but under almost no circumstances will I ever get a widescreen display of any type. I hate widescreen :pinch: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Post-It Note Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I like widescreen since it gives you more room on the sides, where it is actually useful. Unfortunately, with too large a screen, you most likely won't be maximizing windows since they are too large, which means you need to manage stacking several windows side by side. Maybe it's just me, but I would find that annoying (unless Microsoft finds an intelligent solution.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottKin Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I'm happy with 1280 x 1024 ... I don't really feel like shelling out over $900 CAD on a widescreen LCD monitor. :/ 586483875[/snapback] I'm running a sidebar-like program (Desktop Sidebar) at 1280 x 1024 and it' takes up very little space. Just like the taskbar, you *can* make it hide when you need to. IMHO, all of you who are complaining about the sidebar are out-of-touch with what *will* be in use by the time Vista is RTM'ed. Look at the price-drops in LCD monitors, and the dirt-cheap prices on CRTs. You can get a 21" CRT for about US$250.00. Being afraid of change is just plain unreasonable. --ScottKin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_notm Posted September 6, 2005 Share Posted September 6, 2005 I like widescreen since it gives you more room on the sides, where it is actually useful.? Unfortunately, with too large a screen, you most likely won't be maximizing windows since they are too large, which means you need to manage stacking several windows side by side.? Maybe it's just me, but I would find that annoying (unless Microsoft finds an intelligent solution.) 586483933[/snapback] They did, its called Avalon, which allows for resolution independent scaling of onscreen objects. And the sidebar is awesome on widescreen displays. Its not intrusive at all at 1680x1050, in fact, I hate running without one now, which is why I keep MSN Explorer open. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred65 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 I think a lot of people would find the sidebar useful, but for me i want as much space as possible. Web browsing would be fine with a sidebar on a large screen, but working with music software, photoshop and premiere etc need maximum space. Auto-hiding the sidebar would be a good idea, as it would only pop out when needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidnightDevil Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Aren't Plasmas an option? :p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurmoth Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 OK I just made it up quick since I hate all the whining we constantly hear from people who don't understand the idea of the "Longhorn/Vista" sidebar. Those people with low resolution displays and don't get the fact you are NOT forced to have the sidebar enabled. 586483457[/snapback] I completely agree with you... I have a 24" Widescreen monitor with lots of space to spare. I personally think that if Microsoft wants to keep everyone happy, or at least sort of happy, they could have the sidebar turned off by default and anyone who wants it turned on can after the fact. But that's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin-uk Veteran Posted September 7, 2005 Veteran Share Posted September 7, 2005 even if i did have the space, i probly wouldnt use it, i dont see the use in it :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunamonkey Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) edit : messed up post. Edited September 7, 2005 by lunamonkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunamonkey Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 QUOTE(mzhao @ Sep 6 2005, 03:00)I don't care too much if the sidebar's enabled, but under almost no circumstances will I ever get a widescreen display of any type. I hate widescreen pinch.gif * Yeah, when they stop making them in about 10 years time you're be using a rusty old 4:3 still. Even Eastenders is broadcast in widescreen, there's no getting away from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strekship Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 i WISH I COULD AFFORD A NICE WIDESCREEN lcd. uNTIL THEN, I GUESS ILL BE USEING MY 17'' crt @ 1024X768. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madnuke Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Well ive got the highest setting and the sidebar didnt bother me, I know how those must be feeling with those 640 x 460 resultion who hate siderbar. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimbo11883 Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Wow 640x460? I'm temporarily using a Packard Bell 15" from who knows how long ago it was made lol... running 1024x768 and it's killing me... i'd love widescreen for the simple fact that I code and would like to see them longer lines of code ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
madnuke Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 Im not sure what it is but some old man came into the shop I work with, we laughed for 10 minutes after he had gone, he said it was so his scanner would work :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolution Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 How many people actually have HD resolutions or at least that aspect ratio? That's far beyond even what a Widescreen is :/ I don't think a single game supports HD resolutions. And particularly in my situation, will they ever make HD resolution notebook computers??? Seems a bit wide for a notebook....however, in the case of the Desktop that would be fine :) I find it hard to believe that HD resolutions will become mainstream in 2006...when Widescreen aspect ratios aren't fully mainstream yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Caro Posted September 7, 2005 Share Posted September 7, 2005 (edited) People don't follow standars when making web pages. The three main browsers, IE, Firefox, and Opera, are NOT 100% standard compliant, beeing IE the one that offers the WORSE standard compliace. Anyway I don't think that really affects the scrolling and resolution thing. :p If I had a bigger monitor with a bigger resolution, I'd use the sidebar. Otherwise, no way, it takes a lot of space. I mean, I have nothing against the sidebar. But if the recommended solution is to have a widescreen, that's like admitting that it is no use in a 4:3. " What do you have against the sidebar? You think it takes a lot of space? Buy a wider monitor!!!" xD Edited September 7, 2005 by Julius Caro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts