This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Webmaster forum > October 2007 > OT: widescreen monitors
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
OT: widescreen monitors
|
|
| freemont 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
do you ever miss being square? ;-)
Looking at a couple of 19" widescreens for Xmas, and I don't want to be
stuck with something that I'll ultimately not care for. It would be
awkward to set them up and test drive for any length of time. (To answer
the obvious suggestion to try them for a while.)
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
> do you ever miss being square? ;-)
I've been using a widescreen monitor for a couple of years now and I
would certainly never go back. It's great being able to have a couple of
applications open next to each other at the same time, like a text
editor and a web browser, for example. I'm so used to having a
widescreen monitor now that 4:3 monitors just look wrong, sort of squashed!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
> do you ever miss being square? ;-)
I've been using a widescreen monitor for a couple of years now and I
would certainly never go back. It's great being able to have a couple of
applications open next to each other at the same time, like a text
editor and a web browser, for example. I'm so used to having a
widescreen monitor now that 4:3 monitors just look wrong, sort of squashed!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
> do you ever miss being square? ;-)
I have a 20 inch widescreen and yes, I prefer it to the "square"
screen I had before. When I need to see two windows at the same time
for whatever reason, I prefer to look from left to right, then from
top to bottom. I think the width of the window is easier to scan than
the height, but that might just be personal preference.
Also, the width gives me room for a desktop sidebar where I keep all
my quickstart shortcuts (so they don't occupy the taskbar).
> Looking at a couple of 19" widescreens for Xmas, and I don't want to be
> stuck with something that I'll ultimately not care for. It would be
> awkward to set them up and test drive for any length of time. (To answer
> the obvious suggestion to try them for a while.)
Wouldn't have though to suggest that really, but now that you mention
it, you could get a piece of thick paper in that size, put some
printed text on it, and place it in front of you - check if you find
it troublesome to turn your head from left to right to read what's oon
either side of it :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> I'm so used to having a widescreen monitor now that 4:3 monitors
> just look wrong, sort of squashed!
You mean your widescreen is what, 3:2? Mine is a little less wide
then, 4:3. My old monitor was 5:4 :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| mbstevens 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
> do you ever miss being square? ;-)
>
> Looking at a couple of 19" widescreens for Xmas, and I don't want to be
> stuck with something that I'll ultimately not care for. It would be
> awkward to set them up and test drive for any length of time. (To answer
> the obvious suggestion to try them for a while.)
>
Don't forget that in Win and Linux (don't know about Mac)
you can extend your desktop across two monitors. I would take a couple
of square screens over a wide screen any time. (And I wish I had two
wide screens to experiment with!)
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Dylan Parry wrote:
>
>
> You mean your widescreen is what, 3:2? Mine is a little less wide
> then, 4:3. My old monitor was 5:4 :-)
Not entirely sure what you're talking about here :) My monitor is 16:10,
which is pretty much standard and has a display of 1680x1050. Although I
believe you can get 16:9 which can also be seen in use as a widescreen
monitor format. 4:3, for reference is the typical ratio of a monitor
that displays in 800x600 or 1024x768.
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| Dylan Parry wrote:
[...]
Oops. Looks like I hit "reply to all" on this one. Sorry :(
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| (PeteCresswell) 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| Per freemont:
>Looking at a couple of 19" widescreens for Xmas, and I don't want to be
>stuck with something that I'll ultimately not care for.
At home, I've got a Sony square screen: 1600 x 1200.
At work, I've got a cheaper wide-screen: 1920 x 1200.
Because of the Sony's extremely-good picture quality/sharpness,
I'd call it a wash between the two; but, in the end, the more
screen space the better for me.
Even with the so-so quality of the wide-screen monitor at work, I
definitely appreciate the extra space.
A feature of the wide screen I have is that it rotates. I don't
rotate it all that often - but having limited brainpower, I
really appreciate it for working with the occasional
humongously-long routine - and being able to see the whole thing
at once.
--
PeteCresswell
| |
| Scott Bryce 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen?
Yes!
> Or do you ever miss being square? ;-)
No!
> Looking at a couple of 19" widescreens for Xmas,
When I got my wide screen, I got a 24 inch. They are a little pricey,
but one thing I wanted was not to lose any height on my monitor. I had a
19 inch square monitor. I wanted a wide screen monitor that was at least
as tall as the 19 inch. Most of what I do is tall (perl scripts, web
development/browsing) so buying a wide screen monitor with fewer pixels
in height didn't make sense.
I'd love a 30 inch, but they cost 3 times what I paid for the 24 inch. I
couldn't justify the difference in price.
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-16, 10:15 pm |
| Scott Bryce wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>
> Yes!
>
>
> No!
>
>
> When I got my wide screen, I got a 24 inch. They are a little pricey,
> but one thing I wanted was not to lose any height on my monitor. I had
> a 19 inch square monitor. I wanted a wide screen monitor that was at
> least as tall as the 19 inch. Most of what I do is tall (perl scripts,
> web development/browsing) so buying a wide screen monitor with fewer
> pixels in height didn't make sense.
That's where I am -- at 1400x1050 on a traditional 4:3 Trinitron, and
since most of my scrolling is *vertical* on long pages I'm more
interested in having more vertical geography than horizontal. They
don't make many monitors bigger than this one in 4:3. I'm presently
contemplating a 24" because the widescreens (which I consider only the
new norm because of the movie aspect ratio) because they're not much
more expensive than the 20" 4:3 1600x1200 units I started shopping for,
and can be had with the same 1200 px vertical size.
(The one I started liking was a Samsung with the pivot feature someone
else mentioned.)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| freemont 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:39:57 -0500, mbstevens writ:
> freemont wrote:
> Don't forget that in Win and Linux (don't know about Mac)
> you can extend your desktop across two monitors. I would take a couple
> of square screens over a wide screen any time. (And I wish I had two
> wide screens to experiment with!)
Well that's the deal - I currently use two 19" CRTs; they're to be
replaced (possibly) by two 19" widescreen LCDs. And this is a Linux box
with my desktop spread across both monitors, just as you describe.
I'm a little apprehensive about the prospect of having my desktop spread
out across such a wide area. This:
__________________ __________________
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|________________| |________________|
Will become this:
_____________________ _____________________
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
|___________________| |___________________|
.... or so it seems. The question in my head is, how wierd will that be?
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
| |
| mbstevens 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| freemont wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:39:57 -0500, mbstevens writ:
>
>
> Well that's the deal - I currently use two 19" CRTs; they're to be
> replaced (possibly) by two 19" widescreen LCDs. And this is a Linux box
> with my desktop spread across both monitors, just as you describe.
>
> I'm a little apprehensive about the prospect of having my desktop spread
> out across such a wide area. This:
>
> __________________ __________________
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> |________________| |________________|
>
> Will become this:
>
> _____________________ _____________________
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> |___________________| |___________________|
>
> .... or so it seems. The question in my head is, how wierd will that be?
>
It might require a bit of healthy head tilting, but there is so much room!
| |
|
| While we are on monitors..
I seen an ad today in the paper that stated the LCD TV they had on sale had
a "HDMI input, to use as a computer monitor".
I didnt think HDMI inputs were for that type of connection, are they?
What do you all think about using a TV as a monitor also? Better to stick
with just a regular monitor?
| |
| Scott Bryce 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| Blinky the Shark wrote:
> (The one I started liking was a Samsung with the pivot feature someone
> else mentioned.)
I was not able to find a 24 inch Samsung with a pivot feature.
| |
| Scott Bryce 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| freemont wrote:
> I'm a little apprehensive about the prospect of having my desktop spread
> out across such a wide area. This:
I would be more concerned about the desktop becoming less tall. If you
are a web developer, most of what you do is tall.
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| Scott Bryce wrote:
> Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
> I was not able to find a 24 inch Samsung with a pivot feature.
The above was back when where I started -- looking at 20-inchers.
I wanted to get 1200 px vertical, as an improvement over my current
1050. I didn't care as much about horizontal size, so I started looking
for 1600x1200 4:3 conventionals. The pivot I settled on before deciding
to bite the bullet and look at 1920x1200 widescreens was the Samsung
SyncMaster204B.
http://tinyurl.com/fdbs5
They probably don't even make 24" 4:3 monitors, with push being to
widescreens for watching movies.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| Scott Bryce wrote:
> freemont wrote:
>
>
> I would be more concerned about the desktop becoming less tall. If you
> are a web developer, most of what you do is tall.
Heck, even if your a compter-as-toaster type and all you do is email
retreaded 1998 hoax urban legends to your friends and browse the web,
most of what you do is tall.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Jim Moe 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| On 10/16/07 03:49 pm, freemont wrote:
> To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
> computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
> do you ever miss being square? ;-)
>
The screen space in a GUI environment is commonly called a "desktop."
How many desks have you used that were 18" x 18"? You could read a
magazine. *Or* write a letter. *Or* balance a checkbook. But not without
having to put everything else away.
Once you have a monitor that is actually *like* a desktop, you'll wonder
how you ever got any work done.
--
jmm (hyphen) list (at) sohnen-moe (dot) com
(Remove .AXSPAMGN for email)
| |
|
|
"freemont" <freemont@spammenotfreemontsoffice.com> wrote in message
news:30faa$47157426$4b5b430e$22017@ALLTEL.NET...
> On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:39:57 -0500, mbstevens writ:
> I'm a little apprehensive about the prospect of having my desktop spread
> out across such a wide area. This:
>
> __________________ __________________
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> |________________| |________________|
>
> Will become this:
>
> _____________________ _____________________
> | | | |
> | | | |
> | | | |
> |___________________| |___________________|
>
> ... or so it seems. The question in my head is, how wierd will that be?
I currently have three 19 inch monitors, desktop across all three. The
"physical" desktop is 1.2 metres (four feet) wide.
You get used to it pretty quickly. Expecially when you can have half a dozen
things visible at once.
I think I would rather stay with three 19" rather than two, say, 22". Three
areas to park things rather than just two. Also, I would never go from 19"
4x3 to 19" 16x9. Too much loss of height. Have to be at least 22" 16x9.
Possibly 26".
Also, being almost consumables these days three times 19" is a whole lot
cheaper than two times 26".
--
Richard.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Not entirely sure what you're talking about here :) My monitor is 16:10,
> which is pretty much standard and has a display of 1680x1050.
280px more horizontal than I do, okay, mine isn't widescreen then!
> Although I
> believe you can get 16:9 which can also be seen in use as a widescreen
> monitor format. 4:3, for reference is the typical ratio of a monitor
> that displays in 800x600 or 1024x768.
Or 1400 x 1050, as mine :-)
I guess there are regular monitors, widescreens, and eh
semi-widescreens or something? The monitor I have is advertised as
widescreen, but it's obviously not then...
Still looks wide-ish to me, if I compare it with my old monitor, which
I had set to 1280x1024.
Next time I'll want a 16:10 or 16:9 now... :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| rf wrote:
>
> I currently have three 19 inch monitors, desktop across all three. The
> "physical" desktop is 1.2 metres (four feet) wide.
Ground Control to Major Tom... :)
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| Els wrote:
> Dylan Parry wrote:
>
> 280px more horizontal than I do, okay, mine isn't widescreen then!
>
>
> Or 1400 x 1050, as mine :-)
> I guess there are regular monitors, widescreens, and eh
> semi-widescreens or something? The monitor I have is advertised as
> widescreen, but it's obviously not then...
Nope. That's normal old conventional 4:3. Same aspect ratio as
640x480, 800x600, 1024x768.
> Still looks wide-ish to me, if I compare it with my old monitor, which
> I had set to 1280x1024.
Which was a weird aspect ratio -- 5:4
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
|
| Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
> Nope. That's normal old conventional 4:3.
Yes, exactly. Still the monitor is advertised as widescreen (don't
blame me for it ;-) ):
<http://computers.pricegrabber.com/f...ors/m/32673117/>
> Same aspect ratio as 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768.
That's what I'm saying :-)
>
> Which was a weird aspect ratio -- 5:4
If you look at the options for screen resolutions in your display
settings, 1280x1024 is there, while for the past 3 videocards I've
used, including the one I bought last month, 1400x1050 just isn't in
it. Meaning, 1280x1024 is not rare. (nor weird! :P )
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Mark Goodge 2007-10-17, 3:17 am |
| On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 22:49:54 +0000, freemont put finger to keyboard
and typed:
>To those of you who use them: For developing, and also just for day-to-day
>computer stuff, do you prefer the widescreen format to a square screen? Or
>do you ever miss being square? ;-)
I've got a widescreen at work, which is nice for development work. My
home monitor is still standard width, and I don't have any problems
with that for normal mail, news, web and games use.
My main problem with a widescreen monitor at work is when I need to
show my boss something I'm working on (we're in the middle of a major
website redevelopment at the moment). If I call him over to my desk to
show him, the first thing he asks me to do is maximise my browser
while I'm demonstrating, as "it's too distracting having other things
on the screen when I need to concentrate on something like this". But
then, of course, there's loads of white space on the screen as the
content expands to fill the width. At which point, he tells me there's
too much white space and asks me to find something to fill it with. I
have to keep on pointing out that virtually no-one browses full screen
on a widescreen monitor, and that widescreen monitors are a tiny
proportion of our userbase anyway.
That's where the Firefox developer toolbar is really helpful. I can
maximise the window on my monitor, but then say "Of course, hardly
anyone will see it like this. Most people will see it like this..." at
which point I click the button to resize the window "...or this..."
followed by another click, "...or even like this..." followed by
grabbing the window by the corner and resizing it up, down, left and
right.
Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"I wanna spend all your money"
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Yes, exactly. Still the monitor is advertised as widescreen (don't
> blame me for it ;-) ):
> <http://computers.pricegrabber.com/f...ors/m/32673117/>
That's weird, and also contradicts itself in the advertisement... It
says widescreen, but also states that the aspect ratio is 4:3 in the
product details, which is not widescreen :(
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| freemont 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| On Tue, 16 Oct 2007 19:19:08 -0600, Scott Bryce writ:
> Most of what I do is tall (perl scripts, web
> development/browsing) so buying a wide screen monitor with fewer pixels
> in height didn't make sense.
This is the rub. I don't know how much this will bug me - going from
1024px in height to 900px.
Thanks for the input.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| freemont wrote:
> This is the rub. I don't know how much this will bug me - going from
> 1024px in height to 900px.
I know you're looking at 19" monitors, but if you were maybe able to
increase your budget to a 20" one, then this problem would go out the
window as most 20" widescreens (well, they tend to be 20.1" really) are
1050px high.
Depending on how far your budget can stretch, I've always been very
happy with the various Dell monitors that I've owned over the years -
they tend to be of high quality and not too expensive. Not that I'd
recommend buying a desktop PC from them :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| freemont 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| On Wed, 17 Oct 2007 12:28:17 +0100, Dylan Parry writ:
> freemont wrote:
>
>
> I know you're looking at 19" monitors, but if you were maybe able to
> increase your budget to a 20" one, then this problem would go out the
> window as most 20" widescreens (well, they tend to be 20.1" really) are
> 1050px high.
>
> Depending on how far your budget can stretch, I've always been very
> happy with the various Dell monitors that I've owned over the years -
> they tend to be of high quality and not too expensive. Not that I'd
> recommend buying a desktop PC from them :)
>
These are 19" Acers that were on sale at Staples a couple of weeks ago
for, like, 130 bucks apiece. I remarked that it looked like a great deal
and I wanted matching LCDs to replace these monsters on my desk and so my
wife promptly snuck around to buy them. :-)
She and the rest of the family were doing a good job of keeping the secret
sitting in my wife's trunk. Then we were looking at monitors in the store
and I demonstrated the difference in quality between monitors with similar
specs, further explaining that one should ALWAYS look at a monitor before
buying it, as the numbers never tell the whole tale. I noticed a funny
look on her face but thought nothing of it. Well, she later told me about
the monitors in her trunk because what I'd said made her think. She
thought a monitor was a monitor, you see. I hooked _one_ up and it looked
nice, but now I'm having cold feet about the widescreen format. And we
only have another two weeks to return them - Christmas will be too late!
So the price has everything to do with it. $300 for the pair is too
good a deal to pass up. Unless I end up hating them. :-\
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| freemont wrote:
[already bought the things]
> So the price has everything to do with it. $300 for the pair is too
> good a deal to pass up. Unless I end up hating them. :-\
Ah, well in that case, there's nothing to worry about :) It's certainly
a good price for two monitors, and if you're happy with the display
quality I doubt you'll ever look back despite losing 100px or so in height.
Even when you do lose 100px, the actual shape of a widescreen monitor is
much more pleasing to the eye, just as it is when you watch a movie in
widescreen. It's more natural in shape to the "view port" that your own
eyes work with (that sounds wrong, but I can't seem to phrase it right!).
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
| Secret Agent X 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| "Viper" <venomx@XXXXXXXXXX> wrote:
>While we are on monitors..
>
>I seen an ad today in the paper that stated the LCD TV they had on sale had
>a "HDMI input, to use as a computer monitor".
>I didnt think HDMI inputs were for that type of connection, are they?
>What do you all think about using a TV as a monitor also? Better to stick
>with just a regular monitor?
My TV's manual claims that it can be used as a computer monitor. Never
tried it though, no need that I can see.
X
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Dylan Parry wrote:
>
> 280px more horizontal than I do, okay, mine isn't widescreen then!
>
>
> Or 1400 x 1050, as mine :-)
> I guess there are regular monitors, widescreens, and eh
> semi-widescreens or something? The monitor I have is advertised as
> widescreen, but it's obviously not then...
> Still looks wide-ish to me, if I compare it with my old monitor, which
> I had set to 1280x1024.
>
> Next time I'll want a 16:10 or 16:9 now... :-)
>
I have a 16:10 screen (2560 x 1600) and I could never go back. I love it!
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| rf wrote:
> "freemont" <freemont@spammenotfreemontsoffice.com> wrote in message
> news:30faa$47157426$4b5b430e$22017@ALLTEL.NET...
>
>
> I currently have three 19 inch monitors, desktop across all three. The
> "physical" desktop is 1.2 metres (four feet) wide.
>
> You get used to it pretty quickly. Expecially when you can have half a dozen
> things visible at once.
hehe that's nothing... my desktop is 19" (1280 x 1024) + 30" (2560 x
1600) + 19" (portrait) 1024 x 1280. :P It's just gorgeous :)
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| Jim Moe wrote:
> On 10/16/07 03:49 pm, freemont wrote:
> The screen space in a GUI environment is commonly called a "desktop."
> How many desks have you used that were 18" x 18"? You could read a
> magazine. *Or* write a letter. *Or* balance a checkbook. But not without
> having to put everything else away.
> Once you have a monitor that is actually *like* a desktop, you'll wonder
> how you ever got any work done.
>
This is very true... I can't squeeze everything onto a regular desktop
these days. I got way to used to having epic amounts of screen space.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
| Red E. Kilowatt 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| freemont <freemont@spammenotfreemontsoffice.com> wrote in message:
30faa$47157426$4b5b430e$22017@ALLTEL.NET,
> I'm a little apprehensive about the prospect of having my desktop
> spread out across such a wide area. This:
>
> __________________ __________________
>
> Will become this:
>
> _____________________ _____________________
>
> ... or so it seems. The question in my head is, how wierd will that
> be?
The only downside I've found from going from normal screens to
widescreens is that all of the extra horizontal mouse movement takes a
little getting used to.
--
Red
| |
| Ben C 2007-10-17, 10:22 pm |
| On 2007-10-17, Red E. Kilowatt <redkilowattREMOVE@aww-faq.org> wrote:
[...]
> The only downside I've found from going from normal screens to
> widescreens is that all of the extra horizontal mouse movement takes a
> little getting used to.
The logical solution would be to upgrade to a 16:9 mouse mat.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> That's weird, and also contradicts itself in the advertisement... It
> says widescreen, but also states that the aspect ratio is 4:3 in the
> product details, which is not widescreen :(
Oh well, until I get a real widescreen, I'll just tell myself I have a
monitor with a wide screen. (it's high too though ;-) )
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-18, 6:19 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Oh well, until I get a real widescreen, I'll just tell myself I have a
> monitor with a wide screen. (it's high too though ;-) )
Alternatively, you could stick gaffer tape over the top and bottom inch
of the screen and constrain the viewport to the area within the tape :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> Alternatively, you could stick gaffer tape over the top and bottom inch
> of the screen and constrain the viewport to the area within the tape :)
I'd rather put 140px wide mirrors left and right of the screen and
have my 280 extra pixels :-)
Of course, what I'd really want, is SpaceGirl's 30inch widescreen
monitor...
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-18, 6:19 pm |
| Els wrote:
> Of course, what I'd really want, is SpaceGirl's 30inch widescreen
> monitor...
Tbh, I don't think I could deal with a monitor of that size! It would be
bigger than my TV and would probably feel like I was either at the
cinema, or that my TV was really small when I go to watch it :s
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> Tbh, I don't think I could deal with a monitor of that size! It would be
> bigger than my TV and would probably feel like I was either at the
> cinema, or that my TV was really small when I go to watch it :s
Minor incommodity :-)
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| GreyWyvern 2007-10-18, 6:19 pm |
| And lo, Dylan Parry didst speak in alt.www.webmaster:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> Tbh, I don't think I could deal with a monitor of that size! It would be
> bigger than my TV and would probably feel like I was either at the
> cinema, or that my TV was really small when I go to watch it :s
That's only if you keep it upright. As monitors get as big as desktops,
they'll become more like desktops: eg. tabletop screens.
Grey
--
The technical axiom that nothing is impossible sinisterly implies the
pitfall corollary that nothing is ridiculous.
- http://www.greywyvern.com/orca#search - Orca Search: Full-featured
spider and site-search engine
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-18, 6:19 pm |
| GreyWyvern wrote:
> That's only if you keep it upright. As monitors get as big as desktops,
> they'll become more like desktops: eg. tabletop screens.
I've seen people use such screens, but I really don't like the idea. I
have enough problems with neck strain from looking straight ahead at my
monitor without having to stand up and look down at it!
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> GreyWyvern wrote:
>
>
> I've seen people use such screens, but I really don't like the idea. I
> have enough problems with neck strain from looking straight ahead at my
> monitor without having to stand up and look down at it!
I'd probably also just pile stuff on top of it, just like I do with my
regular desktop...
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Dylan Parry 2007-10-18, 6:19 pm |
| Els wrote:
> I'd probably also just pile stuff on top of it, just like I do with my
> regular desktop...
That's a good point too! I can't see most of my desk at the moment, and
recalling pictures you posted of your desk some time back, I doubt you
can either :)
--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk
The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
| |
|
| Dylan Parry wrote:
> Els wrote:
>
>
> That's a good point too! I can't see most of my desk at the moment, and
> recalling pictures you posted of your desk some time back, I doubt you
> can either :)
Well, I've recently posted pics again on my blog, and although it
looks different from the pics you remember, it's still in the same
state :-)
The way it should be:
<http://blog.locusmeus.com/media/1/20061022-acer.jpg>
The way it most often is:
<http://blog.locusmeus.com/media/1/2...-messy-desk.jpg>
I'm planning on buying a proper large desk, but I'm thinking it may
not really help with keeping it neat.
--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-10-18, 10:28 pm |
| On 2007-10-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> Might not have to. I live in North Hollywood...
>
> Unless you mean the Rockies and you're in Iowa. :)
No, I mean the San Gabriel Mountains. I'm just east of I-15 in Victorville.
;p
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...1,5871580.story
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-18, 10:28 pm |
| Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-10-18, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> No, I mean the San Gabriel Mountains. I'm just east of I-15 in Victorville.
Ah. Try waving again...
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
|
|
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-19, 3:34 am |
| Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-10-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> *WAV*
>
> *MP3*
It's dark out. Wait until tomorrow.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Steve Sobol 2007-10-19, 3:34 am |
| On 2007-10-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
> It's dark out. Wait until tomorrow.
You just don't want to talk to me. You Hollywood types are all snobs.
--
Steve Sobol, Victorville, CA PGP:0xE3AE35ED www.SteveSobol.com
Wahoo! Indians beat New York to advance to the AL Championship Series!
http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp...1,5871580.story
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-19, 3:34 am |
| Steve Sobol wrote:
> On 2007-10-19, Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> You just don't want to talk to me. You Hollywood types are all snobs.
Have your people call mine.
--
Blinky RLU 297263
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project - http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| freemont 2007-10-19, 6:18 pm |
| On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 05:05:43 +0000, Blinky the Shark writ:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> Have your people call mine.
>
Or have your people wave at mine. ;-)
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·..·¯`·-> freemont <-·¯`·..·¯
| |
| Safalra (Stephen Morley) 2007-10-19, 6:18 pm |
| On 18 Oct 2007 19:53:47 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
>
> How d'you like it? I've been looking at Samsungs.
I've found it to be a very good monitor. The colour is good (I've never
heard the print designers at work complain), and it has nice little touches
such as very smooth height adjustment. If you have loads of money to spend,
the 21" SyncMaster 215TW is even better, and it lets you turn the screen to
portrait.
--
Safalra (Stephen Morley)
Sortable Tables In java script:
http://www.safalra.com/web-design/j...ortable-tables/
| |
| Blinky the Shark 2007-10-20, 3:18 am |
| Safalra (Stephen Morley) wrote:
> On 18 Oct 2007 19:53:47 GMT, Blinky the Shark wrote:
>
>
> I've found it to be a very good monitor. The colour is good
> (I've never heard the print designers at work complain), and it
> has nice little touches such as very smooth height adjustment.
> If you have loads of money to spend, the 21" SyncMaster 215TW is
> even better, and it lets you turn the screen to portrait.
Thanks, Stephen. Good to hear.
I started with the hots for a 204B (20" 4:3 1600x1200) but I'm
gravitating toward the 245BW (24" 16:9 1920x1200).
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project moved to this site August 28th:
http://improve-usenet.org
| |
| Scott Bryce 2007-10-20, 3:18 am |
| Blinky the Shark wrote:
> I started with the hots for a 204B (20" 4:3 1600x1200) but I'm
> gravitating toward the 245BW (24" 16:9 1920x1200).
Go for it. I love mine. Costco. $480. If they still have them.
| |
| SpaceGirl 2007-10-20, 6:18 pm |
| Blinky the Shark wrote:
> Steve Sobol wrote:
>
> Have your people call mine.
>
I once had the weird 'pleasure' of actually saying that in a meeting
with a record label once. I felt so... corrupted afterwards. Glad I
don't hang around these people any more.
--
x theSpaceGirl (miranda)
http://www.northleithmill.com
-.-
Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
| |
|
| <snip>
>
> I was wondering recently about whether people with widescreen monitors
> maximise their browser windows (I personally keep Firefox at 1024x768
> despite use a 1680x1050 screenmode), so a few days ago I started logging
> the inner szes of the browser windows of people visiting my website. A
> rather cobbled-together graph of the results so far for widths can be
seen
> here:
>
> http://www.safalra.com/shared/displ...-statistics.php
>
> What strikes me is that there are a fair number of people using browser
> windows wider then 1600 pixels - and even a small cluster around 1900
> pixels.
>
>
Thanks. I had suspected this, note my recent thread on "browser width".
I see a substantial number at 1280, about the same as the cluster one
expects at 1024.
Jeff
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|