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

    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
    • Ventoy 1.1.16 is out.
    • This is a none story - these low volume Chinese models will always get new experimental features first because Apple and Samsung can't produce them in huge volume to meet demand.
    • Nvidia GeForce NOW gains support for Dark Scrolls, Empulse, and more by Pulasthi Ariyasinghe The final update of June for Nvidia's cloud gaming service GeForce NOW is now available, and it is touting support for six more games. The company is also drawing subscriber attention towards the summer sales kicking off across stores, so they can stock up on more cloud-supported titles. Of course, the Steam Summer Sale is the biggest promotion, which is kicking off later today. "Supported Steam games can be streamed across devices with GeForce NOW, making it easy to buy a game once, keep progress synced and pick up where the gameplay left off on PCs, Macs, handheld devices, phones, TVs and more," says the company. "In other words, the Steam Summer Sale brings the deals; GeForce NOW adds the flexibility." Don't forget that the GeForce NOW summer sale is still active as well. This limited-time offer drops the 12-month Performance membership from $99.99 to $64.99, saving members $35. At the same time, the 12-month Ultimate membership is currently going for $129.99, dropping the price by $70 from the original $199.99. Here are the games joining GeForce NOW's supported list this week: Dark Scrolls (New release on Steam, available June 22) SAND: Raiders of Sophie (New release on Steam, available June 22) Deer & Boy (New release on Steam, available June 23) EMPULSE (New release on Steam, available June 24) The Adventures of Elliot: The Millennium Tales (Steam) FATAL FURY: City of the Wolves (Steam) With the June expansions coming to an end, Nvidia should be announcing its July GeForce NOW plans next week. Keep in mind that, unlike subscription services like Game Pass or EA Play, a copy of a game must be owned by the GeForce NOW member (or at least have a license via PC Game Pass) to start playing via Nvidia's cloud servers. There is also a limit to how many hours subscribers can use the service per month.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • 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
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      462
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      171
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      135
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      77
    5. 5
      Xenon
      77
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!