Why are all LCD monitors now widescreen?


Recommended Posts

It's just weird. For instance, going on sites like this one. All the posts here are all shifted to left and right side is all empty. Even some sites like YouTube, the site is centered. With 4:3, both left and right sides are fully used up when surfing the net.

That is because the screen is wide.

It's just weird. For instance, going on sites like this one. All the posts here are all shifted to left and right side is all empty. Even some sites like YouTube, the site is centered. With 4:3, both left and right sides are fully used up when surfing the net.

ok, well nothing is shifted to the left on neowin. it's centered. and if you don't like the white space on other sites then don't maximize the window. how hard is that to figure out?

I hate 4:3 for any type of display now.

ok, well nothing is shifted to the left on neowin. it's centered. and if you don't like the white space on other sites then don't maximize the window. how hard is that to figure out?

I hate 4:3 for any type of display now.

But that's the point. In 4:3 monitors, you can maximize the window and no white spaces are there. It's hard to believe that I'm the only person standing on this earth that prefers 4:3. There's a reason why the first monitors were 4:3. It's because they're better. But for some reason, today people got the idea that wider is better, when in reality, it's not. I don't mind them selling widescreen monitors, but at least sell 4:3 as well to give people some option.

As for Neowin being centered. I'll check that out when I get home. I'm not using my home computer at the moment. Right now, I using a nice 4:3 monitor.

Edited by xraffle

I can't see any logic in someone preferring 4:3 over 16:9.

I have an older 36" Sony CRT that I must reconfigure every time I change the video input source/channel. I lost the remote so I have to change it from it's native 4:3 to 16:9 manually with the menu buttons on the set.

I never hesitate to do it though... It just looks so much better. (Sharper even.)

Mine is 19" and I already want something smaller. 19" is just toooo huge. With TVs, yeah, bigger is better. But for computers, the smaller the better.

I must disagree - what is possibly bad about a large computer monitor? If things are too small, maximize the windows and/or increase text size ;) (or, more simply, decrease the resolution)

I personally prefer widescreen because, in Mozilla, I utilize the bookmark bar like crazy mad. On my 15.4" widescreen (laptop) it looks great, with my bookmarks spanning across pretty much the entire thing. On my extended monitor, a 19" 4:3 LCD, about a forth of these bookmarks are cut off on the maximum resolution. It makes it quite frustrating to try to get to those bookmarks quickly on my 4:3.

Movies are also made to be (roughly) 16:9 and I've heard that a 16:9 aspect ratio is more aesthetically pleasing than 4:3, just in general.

Additionally, I feel that I do indeed maximize my productivity, if even slightly. By being able to put two windows side-by-side I can more easily compare two different web pages, for example. Granted these are not wide, but it's still easier than trying to do that on a 4:3.

As if more convincing is needed, 4:3 is unable to support high definition (without boxing) - 16:9 is. It's also cheaper for LCD's to be manufactured in a 16:9 aspect ratio because of its smaller size, but CRT's are hardly ever widescreen because its cost is a function of how close it is to square - thus, a 4:3 aspect ratio (one closer to a square) is cheaper to manufacture.

I must disagree - what is possibly bad about a large computer monitor? If things are too small, maximize the windows and/or increase text size ;) (or, more simply, decrease the resolution)

You know, I see your point. In fact, everyone should have a monitor of at least 52" or I'll laugh at their face. You know why? Because large monitors are in and small ones are out!!

You know, I see your point. In fact, everyone should have a monitor of at least 52" or I'll laugh at their face. You know why? Because large monitors are in and small ones are out!!

lol. Yeah 52 inch would be way too big for me but there is nothing wrong with a nice 24' monitor :) space is good, but I am plently happy with the size of my 19 inch. Too small sucks, and too huge sucks... duh :p

You know, I see your point. In fact, everyone should have a monitor of at least 52" or I'll laugh at their face. You know why? Because large monitors are in and small ones are out!!

I will agree that a regular 19 inch monitor does seem bigger than a 19 inch widescreen one. I think bigger is better to a point. It also depends on the resolution you run the monitors at. A lot of my customers have 20 inch monitors that when set to the default resolution will give them a good amount of screen real estate (The amount of windows you can set side by side). Problem is they have the 20 inch monitors set to a resolution of 800 by 600 or 1024 by 768. Partly because most don't know how to change it, but the other half don't like the desktop so small. So only buy bigger monitors if you plan on using the native resolution. Same thing applies to by 42 inch TV. Sure everything is bigger on screen, but it runs at 1280 by 720 so my 24 inch windscreen that has a native resolution of 1920 by 1200 gives me more real estate.

lol. Yeah 52 inch would be way too big for me but there is nothing wrong with a nice 24' monitor :) space is good, but I am plently happy with the size of my 19 inch. Too small sucks, and too huge sucks... duh :p

Exactly. That's the point I was trying to make. Because no matter what size TV or computer monitor I get, people always comment about how small it is.

It's just weird. For instance, going on sites like this one. All the posts here are all shifted to left and right side is all empty. Even some sites like YouTube, the site is centered. With 4:3, both left and right sides are fully used up when surfing the net.

You're going to run into that problem regardless of screen aspect ratio. Even if I had a 4:3 display, it's still possible to get space on the sides. If I have a 24" 4:3 display, and the resolution is 2048x1536 or whatever it is, and the site is built for 1024x768, I'm gonna be seeing a whole lot of space on the sides.

I have a "full" screen 19" and a 24" wide screen. Running 2x screens at the mo and I must tell you I tend to use the 24" more. On the 24" WS I can have 2 x browsers/apps side by side for comparison/copy and paste but I do find it a bit short and it feels like I needs to scroll down more. But for me I like it because I can have 2 x apps side by side and not have to toggle between tabs/apps.

Thats the first thing to get turned off. What a waste of space.

Funny. When I first turned on my computer when I bought it, the sidebar popped up. I closed it and never came back anymore. I didn't have to turn anything off.

BTW, your signature caught my eye. Vista is full of issues. Ever since I got the computer, I had nothing but problems. I think I got everything resolved, but it's only a matter of time before another problem arises again.

For coding, widescreen is terrible. You end up with less vertical space and a massive excess of horizontal space. I'd rather have a widescreen turned 90 degrees for coding, actually.

well get one that does just that?

i used to have a samsung panel that you could rotate, great for programming :)

I currently have an Acer widescreen monitor (the first one I bought) and I could never ever go back to 4:3 now. I love it. 1440x900 is my favourite resolution, its not to big and not too small (on this monitor at least) :)

I wished I felt the same way. But even if I didn't want to go back to 4:3, I'll be forced to because we don't use widescreen monitors at my job. They're all 4:3.

1440x900 is my favourite resolution

Your favourite? Is it your monitor's native resolution?

well get one that does just that?

i used to have a samsung panel that you could rotate, great for programming :)

Was it actually designed to have a good viewing angle in vertical position? A normal LCD monitor has poor vertical viewing angle compared to horizontal (because horizontal is more important). So obviously when turned these angles switch.

Was it actually designed to have a good viewing angle in vertical position? A normal LCD monitor has poor vertical viewing angle compared to horizontal (because horizontal is more important). So obviously when turned these angles switch.

One thing I noticed about LCDs as opposed to CRTs is that LCDs strain my eyes more. The screen just seems sooo bright that it hurts my eyes after a while. I tried lowering the contrast and brightness, but it just makes the picture darker, dimmer, and takes away a lot of detail. I never had this problem with CRTs,

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Python programmers in a nutshell. Now, guess what lang most AI programmers use... :-)
    • There was nothing whatsoever wrong with Vista as an OS after the SP1 update. People who claim it wasn't were using ancient machines for some silly reason. Not kidding, no hyperbole/exaggeration. Vista was good.
    • Windows ME was worse.
    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      443
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      78
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!