HighTreason, how have you managed to find all of these 1280x800 screens? Are these from about 10 years ago? The only widescreen things I've ever owned were 1366x768 (£250 laptop), 1440x900 (and that came with a bargain-basement Dell system in 2007!) or 1920x1080 (£110 monitor). The only things at 768p are laptops. If you want an upgrade from 1600x1200, then get a 1080p or 1440p monitor, they're not rare or that expensive. There's no way your screen was low-end when new; I had a IBM 17" CRT from around that time for many years, and it couldn't handle anything above 1152x864.

Almost all modern websites are now designed for widescreen use, and they look better for it - bear in mind I have access to laptops with XGA and SXGA+ screens for a comparison. I don't have a big house, or a massive desk at my parent's place, and have never had any issue with fitting monitors onto it. My dad has a 19" 5:4 monitor, but only because his old computer cabinet was designed for it; if he wanted a new cabinet, he could easily fit a widescreen monitor in there if he wanted. Why would I want a 15" or 17" screen for a desktop? If I want that, I use one of my laptops. If you must have one, then I can find a 15.6" widescreen 1080p 11ms panel on Amazon with no real effort; it's not as cheap as it should be, but I've not looked very hard and still found one. 4:3 does have some uses, and I certainly wouldn't write it off - but to say widescreen sucks is a ten-year-out-of-date opinion. Widescreen games are better, widescreen movies are better (although they rarely fill the screen, damnit)...

People keep pointing out games, but the last game I bought and gave a damn about was released over a decade ago. I quit games in 2005, this machine is used for productive tasks.

The 1280x800's are literally 90% of widescreen LCDs I've worked with, I have no idea when they were made but according to the back of my HP one, 2008.

The CRT is an LG one, it was £$69.99 from Makro. Even the £20 Sampo branded one supported 1600x1200 though it went bang a week after purchase (I got banned from the shop I got that from because I punched the shop owner for refusing a return). Admittedly there was a cheaper monitor when I got the LG, a £50 Samsung that only went to 1280x1024.

1080<1200 and I'm not even breaking out the big guns, I have a monitor in need of repair that almost meets 2K and was only £150 new, just having trouble tracking down a few parts for it that are worn out.

I want a small screen for my workstation because that's what you use when you're sat two feet away from it, my best friend has a 40" wannabe-TV on his desk and he looks like a total moron with it constantly bobbing his head after the cursor.

The display you recommend is a substandard brand and has a response time almost four times worse than I require, once you approach 12ms or more I start seeing pointer trails.

My current laptop has a 16:10 LCD on it and I hate it, I would cope with black bars but it turns the scaler on all the time, I dread the day when my CRT stops working and I have to either track down an old medical display or get an ugly widescreen.

Outdated opinion? No, it's fact. It's just people like my friend buying TVs to use as monitors causing manufacturers to drop making real ones. Technology is rapidly becoming unusable for me anyway, so I've been resigned for a few years to the fact that at some point I'll have to stop and find something else to do, with all the money I save I guess at least I'll be able to afford more hookers if nothing else.

Guess I'll be waiting until 2040 when they finally introduce a monitor that equals or even beats the one I already have and this whole wide-screen fad wears off. Disheartening to see the image occasionally losing sync on mine these days as I have no idea how much longer I can make it last.

As a last note, who the hell watches movies anymore? A lot of the movies I watch are old and weren't filmed in widescreen, it annoys me when the top and bottom of my film are cut off. Some were in widescreen, but I don't much care as I saw it in full screen first, so I only look at the bit in the middle of the screen anyway.

King_Corduroy wrote:

🤣 Widescreen monitors. I'm perfectly happy with a 4:3 CRT that goes to 1280x1024. (Although I should adjust the focus since it is a bit fuzzy but to be honest I kind of like it like that. 🤣 )

I'm posting even now from my flatron CRT and I like it!

luckybob wrote:

You ladies need to get on my level. http://m.ebay.com/itm/221057230823

ive used mine for almost 2 years now. I did have to replace the "brick-on-a-rope" power supply just last week.

Only downside is, if you want to play the latest games at 2560x1600, you better have a new crossfire or sli setup. I have a pair of 7970's (280x) and this monitor will still beat them like red-headed stepchildren.

Ladies need to be donated by someone 😎

alexanrs wrote:

HighTreason, I bet that 1600x1200 CRT of yours was pretty high end when it came out.

1600x1200 was fairly standard around 2000-2005.

King_Corduroy wrote:

🤣 Widescreen monitors. I'm perfectly happy with a 4:3 CRT that goes to 1280x1024. (Although I should adjust the focus since it is a bit fuzzy but to be honest I kind of like it like that. 🤣 )

This is 5:4, not 4:3, so now your screen is squashed vertically 😉

jwt27 wrote:

1600x1200 was fairly standard around 2000-2005.

Guess Brazil (or at least my region) was a bit left out there. I haven't seen those around here. Ofc, even if I had one, I'm sensitive to flicker, so I'd never use it at that resolution.

jwt27 wrote:

1600x1200 was fairly standard around 2000-2005. […]
Show full quote

alexanrs wrote:

HighTreason, I bet that 1600x1200 CRT of yours was pretty high end when it came out.

1600x1200 was fairly standard around 2000-2005.

King_Corduroy wrote:

🤣 Widescreen monitors. I'm perfectly happy with a 4:3 CRT that goes to 1280x1024. (Although I should adjust the focus since it is a bit fuzzy but to be honest I kind of like it like that. 🤣 )

This is 5:4, not 4:3, so now your screen is squashed vertically 😉

Hmm looks correct to me. *shrug*

5u3 wrote:

luckybob wrote:

You ladies need to get on my level. http://m.ebay.com/itm/221057230823

Neat!
Does that one support proper VGA (720x400/640x350/640x400 [not just the VESA modes], 4:3 aspect, 70Hz) on the 15-pin sub-D input? This is difficult to test, but maybe you already know...

at first I was like "WHAT?" then i realized my particular monitor ONLY has dvi input. The one i linked obviously is an update, and has the full gamut of inputs.

obobskivich wrote:

I actually have a 16:9 monitor setup like that ("9:16") at my main workstation for viewing text documents and similar tasks. It's "split" into a pair of "9:8" subdivisions in software as well, so when I'm not viewing text I can treat it as two smaller, nearly square displays.

Neat. What software does it use to do that, I am pretty sure Windows can't do anything like that natively?

HighTreason wrote:

People keep pointing out games, but the last game I bought and gave a damn about was released over a decade ago. I quit games in […]
Show full quote

People keep pointing out games, but the last game I bought and gave a damn about was released over a decade ago. I quit games in 2005, this machine is used for productive tasks.

The 1280x800's are literally 90% of widescreen LCDs I've worked with, I have no idea when they were made but according to the back of my HP one, 2008.

The CRT is an LG one, it was £$69.99 from Makro. Even the £20 Sampo branded one supported 1600x1200 though it went bang a week after purchase (I got banned from the shop I got that from because I punched the shop owner for refusing a return). Admittedly there was a cheaper monitor when I got the LG, a £50 Samsung that only went to 1280x1024.

1080<1200 and I'm not even breaking out the big guns, I have a monitor in need of repair that almost meets 2K and was only £150 new, just having trouble tracking down a few parts for it that are worn out.

I want a small screen for my workstation because that's what you use when you're sat two feet away from it, my best friend has a 40" wannabe-TV on his desk and he looks like a total moron with it constantly bobbing his head after the cursor.

The display you recommend is a substandard brand and has a response time almost four times worse than I require, once you approach 12ms or more I start seeing pointer trails.

My current laptop has a 16:10 LCD on it and I hate it, I would cope with black bars but it turns the scaler on all the time, I dread the day when my CRT stops working and I have to either track down an old medical display or get an ugly widescreen.

Outdated opinion? No, it's fact. It's just people like my friend buying TVs to use as monitors causing manufacturers to drop making real ones. Technology is rapidly becoming unusable for me anyway, so I've been resigned for a few years to the fact that at some point I'll have to stop and find something else to do, with all the money I save I guess at least I'll be able to afford more hookers if nothing else.

Guess I'll be waiting until 2040 when they finally introduce a monitor that equals or even beats the one I already have and this whole wide-screen fad wears off. Disheartening to see the image occasionally losing sync on mine these days as I have no idea how much longer I can make it last.

As a last note, who the hell watches movies anymore? A lot of the movies I watch are old and weren't filmed in widescreen, it annoys me when the top and bottom of my film are cut off. Some were in widescreen, but I don't much care as I saw it in full screen first, so I only look at the bit in the middle of the screen anyway.

Well, I'm sorry, but you are a long way behind the times (or unable to see other people's perspectives). I still regularly watch films, as do a lot of people I know (in fact, the vast majority of people I know; as we're university students, for a lot of them, this means watching films on laptops). For any pre-widescreen films, I can either watch it with black bars (not a major issue), or fire up my 4:3 laptop and watch them on there. You claim things to be "fact", but it is purely your opinion that widescreen "sucks" - that is most definitely not a fact in any sense of the term. You're very unlucky if all of the screens you've come across are 1280x800, but if you look at pretty much any new screen - this includes TVs - they'll support 1366x768 at a minimum, which is equivalent to the XGA resolution that a lot of 4:3 CRTs and TFTs ran at back in the day for most people - why do you think Microsoft set XGA up as the modern standard? Again, my IBM CRT, which was far from high-end, but wasn't exactly bargain-basement either, ran at 1152x864. I also had a 14" Sony CRT that wouldn't go beyond 800x600 without making a complete pig's ear out of everything (spec allowed for 1024x768, but at a terrible refresh rate). And, yes, I have used a 1600x1200 screen - it was on a laptop though (very nice and sharp screen at 15", fitted to a Dell Inspiron 8100). 1920x1080 has more pixels than 1600x1200, so it is an upgrade. 1920x1200 screens are also out there if you look for them. As for the monitor I showed, it was hardly a recommendation - just a pointer that it is fairly easy to find a monitor that is far superior to the piece of junk you were describing as the only thing out there.

I have no problem with 4:3, but I do have an issue with people who have irrational hatred for either form factors, particularly when their justifications are so woolly. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, neither "sucks". But for modern usage, 16:9 is superior for most cases (there are always the odd exceptions). If 4:3 was as far superior as you claim, you would still see a fair few decent panels floating around in that form factor, rather than just a tiny handful.

1. You're not listening.
2. You're talking a load of crap about 50% of the time anyway.
3. I can't be bothered, I've got stuff to do. Have a nice day.

Stiletto wrote:

obobskivich wrote:

I actually have a 16:9 monitor setup like that ("9:16") at my main workstation for viewing text documents and similar tasks. It's "split" into a pair of "9:8" subdivisions in software as well, so when I'm not viewing text I can treat it as two smaller, nearly square displays.

Neat. What software does it use to do that, I am pretty sure Windows can't do anything like that natively?

Windows can do that by itself since Seven or Vista (there is an orientation option in the Screen Resolution screen). Failing that, AFAIK any Intel/Nvidia/AMD GPU/IGP from the past decade can do that too (in XP and below even).

EDIT: AutoCorrect keeps thinking I'm typing in portuguese ¬¬

There is too much monitor talk that doesn't involve actually buying them.. Take it into another thread guys. 😀

I agree about the lack of vertical space with wide screen. 1366x768 seems like a terrible resolution. It's the 768 that is limiting.
By the time you get up to 1920x1080, it seems less restricting.

alexanrs wrote:

Stiletto wrote:

obobskivich wrote:

I actually have a 16:9 monitor setup like that ("9:16") at my main workstation for viewing text documents and similar tasks. It's "split" into a pair of "9:8" subdivisions in software as well, so when I'm not viewing text I can treat it as two smaller, nearly square displays.

Neat. What software does it use to do that, I am pretty sure Windows can't do anything like that natively?

Windows can do that by itself since Seven or Vista (there is an orientation option in the Screen Resolution screen). Failing that, AFAIK any Intel/Nvidia/AMD GPU/IGP from the past decade can do that too (in XP and below even).

EDIT: AutoCorrect keeps thinking I'm typing in portuguese ¬¬

Windows can subdivide a monitor into two virtual desktops natively? Not that I've seen...

16:9 and 16:10 are Industry Standards now, all new games support this, web browsers support it, and all new movies we may want to watch on PC all support it, as well as a very large portion of websites out there. Everyone else in computing has switched to this some 5 years ago. Anyone still trying to cling to their old 5:4 screens for anything other than retro computing are just stuck in the past and refusing to accept change. Sorry, but that's the way the world turns.

And.. we're de-railing this thread from it's intended purpose by discussing this here. Perhaps someone should go make our own thread to discuss monitors instead?

kithylin wrote:

16:9 and 16:10 are Industry Standards now, all new games support this, web browsers support it, and all new movies we may want to watch on PC all support it, as well as a very large portion of websites out there. Everyone else in computing has switched to this some 5 years ago. Anyone still trying to cling to their old 5:4 screens for anything other than retro computing are just stuck in the past and refusing to accept change. Sorry, but that's the way the world turns.

Precisely. I agree 1366x768 is limited; but then, I only use that laptop for lectures.

Ooooh, I misunderstood. I believed you were talking about rotating the desktop... My head isn't very good today apparently ahahahahah.

Anyway, a quick look at google returned me this:
http://www.actualtools.com/multiplemonitors/s … ller-ones.shtml

Lukeno94 wrote:

kithylin wrote:

16:9 and 16:10 are Industry Standards now, all new games support this, web browsers support it, and all new movies we may want to watch on PC all support it, as well as a very large portion of websites out there. Everyone else in computing has switched to this some 5 years ago. Anyone still trying to cling to their old 5:4 screens for anything other than retro computing are just stuck in the past and refusing to accept change. Sorry, but that's the way the world turns.

Precisely. I agree 1366x768 is limited; but then, I only use that laptop for lectures.

I'd rather have 1280x800 than 1366x768

King_Corduroy wrote:

jwt27 wrote:

This is 5:4, not 4:3, so now your screen is squashed vertically 😉

Hmm looks correct to me. *shrug*

The difference is fairly small, but I find it large enough to be annoying. Try displaying a circle at 1280x1024 and 1280x960, the difference should be obvious.

alexanrs wrote:

jwt27 wrote:

1600x1200 was fairly standard around 2000-2005.

Guess Brazil (or at least my region) was a bit left out there. I haven't seen those around here. Ofc, even if I had one, I'm sensitive to flicker, so I'd never use it at that resolution.

Most 19" and 21" screens from that time support 1600x1200 at 75Hz, and usually the "recommended" resolution was 1280x1024 (5:4) at 85Hz. They're very common now around here.

HighTreason wrote:

Widescreen is for TVs, 5:4 and 4:3 is for getting shit done.

4:3 was originally a compromise, since it was very difficult to manufacture colour CRTs in a non-square aspect ratio. 4:3 was simply the best they could do 60 or so years ago, therefore it became the standard for TV, and later on, computers. 16:10 is generally seen as more aesthetically pleasing, since it is closer to the golden ratio (16/10=1.6 vs (1+sqrt(5))/2=1.618).
Personally I don't really have a preferred aspect ratio, though I tend to like 4:3 slightly more since many older programs/games were designed around this. I think widescreen is a bit easier on the eyes though, since it's easier to move your eyes horizontally than vertically. While on the web, I usually use a widescreen format for my browser window (though my tab bar often eats about half the screen too, making the browser window gradually more widescreen)

HighTreason wrote:

I have a monitor in need of repair that almost meets 2K and was only £150 new, just having trouble tracking down a few parts for it that are worn out.

My current CRT nearly supports "4K", but the Nvidia drivers keep crashing whenever I try to set this resolution 🙁