[MW Forums]

BenQ has introduced the FP93G X, an LCD display it says has the world's grey-to-grey response time, at 2 milliseconds. more

[leicaman]

Cool, fast is good. But what's with all the squarish LCDs out there? Wide is sooooo much better. I'll take wide over fastest any day. And pay more for it too! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[bernardb]

Great...another 1.25 aspect ratio blah display....ever since I have had my 22 " Cinema Display, which turned into the 23" HD Display, which turned into the 30" HD Display I have now, I have not been able to comfortably LOOK at one of those little square ones! Why do they insist on 1280 X 1024 in this day and age? /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[Nobody]

Because you are lucky if modern games even support 1280x1024 natively. Almost none of them support native widescreens, so it is letterbox or streched. And with LCDs, if you are not at the native resolution, you get pixel scaling which looks bad. So I would say seeing that this LCD is targeted at gaming, 1280x1024 is just right.
I have a 1280x1024 Dell LCD, and it is great. But I do see some "tearing" at times on high-end games like HalfLife 2 (and its mods).
Regards,
Troy

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

Great...another 1.25 aspect ratio blah display....ever since I have had my 22 " Cinema Display, which turned into the 23" HD Display, which turned into the 30" HD Display I have now, I have not been able to comfortably LOOK at one of those little square ones! Why do they insist on 1280 X 1024 in this day and age?

---

Probably because different people have different needs and preferences. Hence we have a variety of options to select from which best suits our needs and personal, subjective preferences.
Think of carsfor example. I'm sure you've met people who really don't care for some of the cars you may like and vice versa. Now imagine if all the car companies decided that they'd just put out one type of car that joe x liked because since he's driven car y he really doesn't understand how anyone could drive car z.
I also prefer a wide aspect personally, but have found others couldn't care less at this point, but then they're mostly just casual computer users, which accounts for the large majority of users in the consumer space I imagine. I've also found them useful as palette monitors and preview monitors for web development as many people still have 4:3 CRTs for that matter.

[stlc8tr]

Because 4:3 displays offer more pixel real estate than 16:10 displays? A 20" 4:3 is 1600x1200 wheras the 20" 16:10 is only 1680x1050. The 4:3 offers almost 9% more pixels.
I want the maximum amount of pixels for each display, which is why I go for 4:3 instead of 16:10.

[JakeT]

Cars do look pretty much the same.

[Peter Cohen]

Yeah, I confuse Hummers and VW Beetles all the time.

[prajna]

My problem is I can't seem to tell the difference between a 1923 Bentley and a 1986 Yugo.

not really a stranger

[robertRoss]

In reply to:

---

Cars do look pretty much the same.

---

As do monitors, though, like cars, they come in different sizes, shapes, and configurations, though not as many varieties of cars.

[Tau_Myx]

In reply to:

---

Because 4:3 displays offer more pixel real estate than 16:10 displays? A 20" 4:3 is 1600x1200 wheras the 20" 16:10 is only 1680x1050. The 4:3 offers almost 9% more pixels.

---

So the wide display gains 80 pixels on the sides, and looses 150 on the bottom. Also, your numbers reflect a 5% higher DPI for the 4:3 display, which is bad in this context because it means that text and icons are smaller and harder to read on the 4:3 display.
But more importantly, horizontal pixel count is much more valuable then vertical count. This is because all text documents can easily be scrolled up and down without much loss of readability, but the need to scroll horizontally makes text almost unreadable because you have to stop reading in the middle of every sentence to use the mouse.

[Tau_Myx]

In reply to:

---

Yeah, I confuse Hummers and VW Beetles all the time.

---

Neither of these are common cars. Lately I have a lot more trouble finding my car in parking lots. It's a sea of similar silver sedans. (Current car wasn't my choice)

[stlc8tr]

In reply to:

---

So the wide display gains 80 pixels on the sides, and looses 150 on the bottom. Also, your numbers reflect a 5% higher DPI for the 4:3 display, which is bad in this context because it means that text and icons are smaller and harder to read on the 4:3 display.

---

Actually, that's not true. You have to consider that a 16x10 display has less screen real estate as well as less pixel real estate. Look at the specs for a 20" wide screen and a 20" standard LCD (the 2005FPW and the 2001FP, in this case) and do the math. The 2005FPW is 433.4 x 270.9mm while the 2001FP is 408 x 306mm so the pixel pitch difference is less than 1.2% more for the wide screen (0.258 vs. 0.255). I doubt that anyone would notice a 1% difference in text/icon size.

In reply to:

---

But more importantly, horizontal pixel count is much more valuable then vertical count. This is because all text documents can easily be scrolled up and down without much loss of readability, but the need to scroll horizontally makes text almost unreadable because you have to stop reading in the middle of every sentence to use the mouse.

---

Shrug. Well, this is a matter of personal preference so it's kinda hard to argue. You like having wider displays with less overall pixels while I like taller displays with more overall pixels. I like being able to view two 800x600 pages side by side. Great for viewing digital comics.