Dell Opens An Era Of More Affordable 24-inch Displays

Status
Not open for further replies.

tkuhl87

Distinguished
May 29, 2008
3
0
18,510
0
I can't see why 16:9 is such a bad thing. I've always thought it was stupid to have one format for HDTV's and one format for monitors. Now you can watch a Widescreen 16:9 movie on your computer with no black bars. That and it's a cheaper manufacturing process, what's to complain about that?
 

Niva

Distinguished
Jul 20, 2006
141
0
18,630
0
I on the other hand have disdained the moment we switched away from 4:3 monitors. The only thing widescreen monitors are good for is viewing movies and playing FPS games.
 

The_Blood_Raven

Distinguished
Jan 2, 2008
84
0
18,580
0
Does this have a TN panel or a true 8-bit panel I wonder. If it has a TN panel then this monitor is junk, there are better TN panel 24" monitors for less on the market.
 

KyleSTL

Distinguished
Aug 17, 2007
38
0
18,580
0
TN does not mean it is a 6-bit panel. TN is a type of pixel switching (see also PVA, MVA, IPS). 8-bit vs. 6-bit is a different matter. Not every TN is 6-bit, and not every 6-bit is TN (I beleive that second part of the statement to be true, correct me if I'm wrong - although I beleive that 99% of 6-bits panels use TN).
 

mdillenbeck

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
283
0
18,930
0
@Niva

I second Torment's sentiment - when coding in an IDE, the wide screen is a life saver.

There are a lot more uses than just movies and FPS. If you multitask and have several windows open, sometimes its nice to have them side by side. Maybe you want to keep system monitoring software programs open to diagnose what application is choking up your system. Image editing software benefits with all the extra tool palettes set off to the side. Same with CAD design. Heck, sometimes I just want to have a youtube video streaming off to the side while I do my work in an adjacent windows.

Essentially, its all about desktop real estate. As more and more programs add in side bars (pdf bookmarks, browser history and favorites, and so forth), a wide screen becomes more valuable than a 4:3 big screen.
 

Alternator

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
24
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]tkuhl87[/nom]I can't see why 16:9 is such a bad thing. I've always thought it was stupid to have one format for HDTV's and one format for monitors. Now you can watch a Widescreen 16:9 movie on your computer with no black bars. That and it's a cheaper manufacturing process, what's to complain about that?[/citation]

Actually you can't. From memory plenty of movies are even wider than 16:9 so you still get the black bars...


Personally I wouldn't choose to drop from my current 1920x1200 to 1920x1080, so the question is what is what is the next step up in resolution and screen size to keep my vertical resolution from decreasing without any horizontal size gains.
 
G

Guest

Guest
22, 24 inches, who cares; and, it's meaningless. It's a diagonal measurement. The wider you make them, the less monitor real-estate (square footage) you get per diagonal measurement. LCD makers are moving to wider screens so that they can f you. LCDs should be labeled with their square footage, not their meaningless diagonal distance.

 
G

Guest

Guest
u r moron if u like wide. 'wide' is less and 'wider' is even less.
16x10 is already almost too narrow. 4x3 will always be best.
Best area for footprint. Best way to work and see and have useful margins or subtitles out of your way. just best. people give opinions i say u r all full of it. its objective I say that 4x3
is most practical format. what's next 2x1? I guess if 16x9 is better than 4x3, then 16x1 would be best of all. fin morons.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Im so tired of people saying wider gives u more. it gives u less.
us what little brain u have. wider means NOTHING more that less tall.
duh,duh, duh fin duh.
 

gsacks

Distinguished
Jul 31, 2008
4
0
18,510
0
There is a flaw in the "wider is shorter" argument. When wide screens first became popular, I also ranted about them being "short-screen" monitors and tvs. But in reality, our field of visions is naturally wider than it is tall. It is called peripheral vision. Also, just try keeping your head still and moving your eyes side-to-side a few times. Then try keeping you head still and moving them up and down. Side-to-side is more natural. So if you want to increase the screen real estate on a large monitor, wider really is better - not just as a matter of cost, but from a practical point of view as well.
 
G

Guest

Guest
Wider gives you more!! Wider gives you more!! Wider gives you more!!
 

Alternator

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
24
0
18,560
0
[citation][nom]gsacks[/nom]There is a flaw in the "wider is shorter" argument. When wide screens first became popular, I also ranted about them being "short-screen" monitors and tvs. But in reality, our field of visions is naturally wider than it is tall. It is called peripheral vision. Also, just try keeping your head still and moving your eyes side-to-side a few times. Then try keeping you head still and moving them up and down. Side-to-side is more natural. So if you want to increase the screen real estate on a large monitor, wider really is better - not just as a matter of cost, but from a practical point of view as well.[/citation]

True, but peripheral vision isn't the beginning and end of the issue. It needs to be balanced back against what the display is being used for.

Webpages are designed to benefit from more vertical space, so are word documents.
Excel spreadsheets are a mix although my experience shows they tend to favor more horizontal space.
Gaming/movies I would say favor more horizontal as well
etc...


However even with that in mind, is from a computing perspective 16:9 better than 16:10?

So lets look at what you will get:

16:10 16:9
1920x1200 becomes 1920x1080
2560x1600 becomes 2560x1440

The net result here is that unless the change will push you up to the next highest resolution than you would go at 16:10, you don't gain any horizontal space for information. In other words no benefit to your applications (e.g. Excel), but you are also losing vertical space which is going to impact all applications. Except for movies which favor the 16:9 aspect ratio.

Aesthetically though, maybe you will find a 16:9 easier to look at?!?
 

Alternator

Distinguished
Jul 15, 2006
24
0
18,560
0
I should add, I'm not actually against the shift even though I feel the panels wont be quite as good from a computing point of view.
I think it will allow more standardisation for production which I believe to be very beneficial.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
K Streaming Video & TVs 1
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
P Streaming Video & TVs 2
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
L Streaming Video & TVs 1
M Streaming Video & TVs 1
R Streaming Video & TVs 0
A Streaming Video & TVs 2
M Streaming Video & TVs 3
R Streaming Video & TVs 2
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
B Streaming Video & TVs 1
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
S Streaming Video & TVs 0
J Streaming Video & TVs 2
N Streaming Video & TVs 2
W Streaming Video & TVs 1
S Streaming Video & TVs 2
D Streaming Video & TVs 1
C Streaming Video & TVs 1

ASK THE COMMUNITY