Quick Help Required: 20" LCD - Wide vs. Normal??

[xenithon]

Hi guys. Quick question needed:

Talking LCD's, obviously 20.1" monitors are quite a step up to 19" monitors (due to resolution). The widecreens are 16x10, 1680x1050, height roughly that of a 17" LCD. 20.1" regular are 4:3, 1600x1200. A good friend wants an LCD and for around R1100 more than a 19" he can get 20.1" (either type) so is definitely going that way. Now onto ratio choice:

He does no gaming, watches DVDs at most once a month, and thus uses the PC for "office" type of stuff such as word processing, email, browsing, some photo editing etc. I personally think the 4:3 is far more suitable - he would really miss the height with a WS, and it aint of much use seeing that he doesn't game/watch much videos. He also prefers Alt-Tabbing as opposed to resizing multiple windows to sit side-by-side etc. Would you agree with my suggestion?

Cheers,
X

 

[Luke7777]

19" LCD will suit him just fine, 2 will be even nicer, at a bit more than a decent 20.1 (IMO of course, and working on R2800 for a 19")

 

[xenithon]

Hi there. He is going for a 20" definitely - wants the added resolution and size. Also, prefers the accuracy of it - since 17" and 19" LCDs have the same number of pixels, the size of the pixels is larger on 19" monitors which can sometimes make it look grainy/less accurate.

He can get a 20.1" LCD for roughly R4500, the equivalent 19" for around R3000 (he is adamant on the make).

 

[Luke7777]

Sorry X, misread your question

 

[Napalm]

19" LCD's (4ms) are good for gaming / normal use. Sure the Added resolutions are nice.. But who actually works in those resolutions anyhow ?? I play most my games at 1024x768... I don't know of many ppl who play games or work in 1600x1200.. even if their monitors can do more..

 

[xenithon]

Right - so I chatted with him again. Via MSN we came up with the following arguments for non-widescreen. Bear in mind: this may come off looking as if the mind is set already, but it isn't. Just want to lay out all the reasons found with research and what was felt when playing around with a 20.1" widescreen a while ago beforehand instead of back-and-forth rhetoric. Can get both WS and 4:3 20.1" at the same price.

17" = 19" in terms of pixels, the 19" pixels are slightly larger which can make them look less accurate/fuzzy. So in terms of size, it's a no-brainer that 20.1" is the way to go, especially for the price difference.

The central points to the debate for widescreens are that a) it is more productive wide if used for multitasking, b) games look better wide and c) movies look better wide. But thoughts need to go into how and for what the PC is used.

- do not game. Last time he gamed was about a year ago. And when they do, it won't be FPS (first person shooters) anyway
- hardly watch any movies or DVDs on the PC. Used to, but with the laptop now hooked up to the plasma, if there is ever anything to watch he opts for watching it on the plasma, especially being able to stream wirelessly from the home network.
- Productivity is higher if your usage patterns are having windows side-by-side. He hardly ever does. When he played around with a 20.1" widescreen, he had multiple windows open but not side by side, and always Alt-Tabbed as it felt more comfortable/natural.
- Also felt that he was missing the height (though that obviously takes getting used to). 24" WS rock but 20.1" WS is questionable unless it is a primary video-watching and/or game-playing monitor.

We found some great debates here at the Hardforum.

So…finally….for this usage, is a wide worth considering? What benefit would there be if not used for videos/games and not running multiple side-by-side apps? Once again - the mind is not made up already, just wanted to lay everything we found thus far out on the table.

Cheers,
X

 

[Luke7777]

From the points you made, the only "niggle" would be the height thing. Forget the fact that he:
1. doesn't game,
2. doesn't watch movies,
3. doesn't have windows side by side

Point is : He will have the ability when he does decide to try any of the above. At the same price, i'd go wide. If I had not recently bought 2 19"LCD to run side by side, I'd have taken you up on that recent offer of yours

Curious : What gfx card is he running and if anything above (and incl 6600GT) , my question would be : Why ?

 

[bb_matt]

If your not watching movies, or playing games, what are you doing?

Well, more than likely, your surfing the web and doing your work.

Given the fact that these tasks are essentially geared toward specific screen size ratios, it seems logical that you'd be better off sticking to those.

Height is a BIG plus when it comes to office work/email/surfing because you want to get as much text in a vertical space as possible. We are still more comfortable viewing written content in Portrait, as opposed to Landscape.

Having said that, monitors can be swivelled and video cards set to rotate the image display, it depends on how elegant the method of orientating a screen is, which usually equates to a more expensive monitor.

Personally, I prefer more height - you can still view DVD's in widescreen mode, but not all movies are made in widscreen and definately not all TV programs.

Ditto for games - the game needs to have been designed to display widescreen.

 

[xenithon]

A primary problem: unless you know someone who owns one there's no easy way to go out and compare good quality screens in SA. Especially larger sizes. The most you will be lucky to find at shops is a decent 19" LCD.

The usage is primarily "office" work, but rarely are two docs side by side, normally full-screened and, if multitasking, Alt-Tabbed. On the 19" CRT some Excel stuff he uses (though not too much) are lacking width, but - and its a big but IMO - a 20" regular is 1600 vs a 19" 1280 width, so that is taken care of.

I was also very surprised when I looked at the specs:
20.1" Regular vs WS vertically = 10.7" vs 12.1" (1.4" taller)
20.1" Regular vs WS horizontally = 16.1" vs 17." (only 0.9" narrower)

X

 

[mooK]

xenithon, I don't understand those measurements, according to them the regular 4:3 monitor is wider than the widescreen monitor. In the first line you say horizontally, and according to the way you've phrased it you say that the regular is 12.1" compared to 10.7" WS, then u say so the difference is 1.4" taller, wtf?

 

[xenithon]

Edited....sorry got the measurements mixed up

 

[bullfrog]

Ok the way I see this is. If he doesn't use the pro's of widescreen, why buy a wide screen?

I think for office work a normal screen will be a lot better, same goes for surfing the web.