Reply 6940 of 54413, by Lukeno94
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found one. 4:3 does have some uses, and I certainly wouldn't write it off - but to say widescreen sucks is a ten-year-out-of-date opinion.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)...