Widescreen vs Non-widescreen

Associate
Joined
19 Mar 2004
Posts
26
I'm torn on my monitor purchase between whether to go for the Dell 2001FP or go for Widescreen (in which case I'm leaning towards the Belinea)

I use my comp solely for gaming. No DVD watching or the like. I could do with a collection of second opinions to save me a month of deliberation.

Alternatively, am I better off waiting for something new? I'd rather not spend more than the £411 that the Dell costs.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
881
What sort of games do you play?

I bought the 2005FPW over the 2001 becuase i watch a lot of movies and i play a lot of FPS games.

However depending on what type of games you play, the 2001FP looks like the better option for you if you dont watch movies.
 
Associate
Joined
21 Oct 2002
Posts
881
I was holding back from buying a ws monitor, but i will never go back to normal.

I hate having to go into uni and using their standard screens now :D
 
Soldato
Joined
16 May 2005
Posts
6,509
Location
Cold waters
I don't rate widescreen for anything other than the immersion factor while watching films or games. Surely the vertical space ratio is just as important as the horizontal for desktop applications. A normal monitor is already wider than it is tall - even less vertical room can't be a good thing.

For a computer, I'd take a 20" 4:3 over a 20" widescreen any day.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
4,869
Location
England
Im currenty on 1280x1024 but will be going to 1440x900 with the acer im buying next week, loosing the vertical room will be annoying at 1st but widesreen games and movies look awesome.
 
Associate
Joined
11 Dec 2005
Posts
91
Currently own the acer WS monitor. its great i was lucky and had no dead or stuck pixels. i do miss the 124 pixels of height but it just means you have to scroll a little more on the net.. but i just LOVE watching dvd's on this. it looks fantastic;

 
Soldato
Joined
7 Mar 2005
Posts
6,729
Location
Wolverhampton
DannyW said:
Im currenty on 1280x1024 but will be going to 1440x900 with the acer im buying next week, loosing the vertical room will be annoying at 1st but widesreen games and movies look awesome.

i run at 1024x768, never ever ran higher. When i get my acer i will gain on vertical wont i, 132 pixels is that right? :)

Ste0803 said:
Currently own the acer WS monitor. its great i was lucky and had no dead or stuck pixels. i do miss the 124 pixels of height but it just means you have to scroll a little more on the net.. but i just LOVE watching dvd's on this. it looks fantastic;


Being widescreen, how come there are still black borders top and bottom? :/

Looks a nice screen tho.
 
Last edited:
Caporegime
Joined
20 Oct 2002
Posts
74,024
Location
Wish i was in a Ramen Shop Counter
Camalot said:
i run at 1024x768, never ever ran higher. When i get my acer i will gain on vertical wont i, 132 pixels is that right? :)



Being widescreen, how come there are still black borders top and bottom? :/

Looks a nice screen tho.

because the monitor is 16:9, where some films are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 which are even wider, hence the boarders.
 
Associate
Joined
14 Mar 2003
Posts
1,135
DannyW said:
Im currenty on 1280x1024 but will be going to 1440x900 with the acer im buying next week, loosing the vertical room will be annoying at 1st but widesreen games and movies look awesome.

I did this with a Samsung 940MW. 1440x900 isn't too bad, beats somethingx768 at least. I know the TV quality isn't the best but its adequate as a bonus and saves more space with it being all in one.
 
Associate
Joined
8 Dec 2003
Posts
697
Location
alsager, near crewe
i'd get the 2005 dell mate as i have just because you have the same vertical space as a 17" or 19" = 1605 x 1025 to me the 1600 x 1200 will be a lot smaller on the desktop than i'm used to and will require more gfx power, it will also be inferiour in fps games and of course movies.
 
Back
Top Bottom