1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Widescreen vs Non-widescreen

Discussion in 'Monitors' started by Biblin, 22 Jan 2006.

  1. Biblin

    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.
     
  2. t_aitch

    Hitman

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 883

    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.
     
  3. Nixeh

    Hitman

    Joined: 3 Jun 2005

    Posts: 874

    Location: Bristol/Portsmouth, England

    From what i can see widescreen is the way forward. Its good for movies, games, design. I cant actually think of something its not better for, though im sure someone will come along and mention one ive forgot.
     
  4. t_aitch

    Hitman

    Joined: 21 Oct 2002

    Posts: 883

    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
     
  5. Camalot

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 6,633

    Location: Wolverhampton

    Im still waiting to order my Acer 19" w/s :)

    I think widescreen is the future, its more "immursive" if you know what i mean.

    Just my oppiniion tho !
     
  6. Spyhop

    Soldato

    Joined: 16 May 2005

    Posts: 6,510

    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.
     
  7. Jokester

    Don

    Joined: 7 Aug 2003

    Posts: 40,789

    Location: Aberdeenshire

    I would agree with that, for me it only becomes comparable between say 20" 4:3 and a 24" widescreen, and then cost becomes an issue.

    Jokester
     
  8. DannyW

    Man of Honour

    Joined: 31 Dec 2005

    Posts: 4,870

    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.
     
  9. Ste0803

    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;

    [​IMG]
     
  10. Camalot

    Soldato

    Joined: 7 Mar 2005

    Posts: 6,633

    Location: Wolverhampton

    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.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jan 2006
  11. Raymond Lin

    Capo Crimine

    Joined: 20 Oct 2002

    Posts: 65,975

    Location: Wish i was in .Lethal's house

    because the monitor is 16:9, where some films are 1.85:1 or 2.35:1 which are even wider, hence the boarders.
     
  12. Biblin

    Associate

    Joined: 19 Mar 2004

    Posts: 26

    Cheers folks. Reckon I'll be going with the 4:3 for the extra vertical space.
     
  13. jklc

    Hitman

    Joined: 14 Mar 2003

    Posts: 877

    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.
     
  14. Apatche64

    Hitman

    Joined: 8 Dec 2003

    Posts: 703

    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 alot 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.