[windows2000] Re: OT: Arguments for a bigger monitor
- From: "Sorin Srbu" <sorin.srbu@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <windows2000@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:08:03 +0200
Ray Costanzo <> scribbled on Tuesday, April 08, 2008 4:30 AM:
I'm running 1600x1200 now and I'm thinking that if I could increase that to
say 1900x1200 I would increase my width. With like eg
http://www.dustin.se/DacsaPortal/?ProdID=5010112199. The height is not really
an issue for me, it's those long line of code that bugs me. Sure I could use a
"wrap long lines"-feature,but for me that means I also loose overview when
lines run together with the one below or above.
My current 22" CRT I use at work, can run at 1600x1200 at the most with a
reasonable sweeping frequency (85-100Hz), so I can't increase the rez either
without making things too small on the screen. Increasing the width to around
1900pix and getting a bigger monitor seems just right for me.
I do see your point though. I got a new flatscreen for home A Fujitsu,
http://www.dustin.se/DacsaPortal/?ProdID=5010123558, and while this monitor is
slightly wider than the 19" CRT (which I ran at 1600x1200) I had before, the
Fujitsu is also 200pixels lower in the height department. I kinda' miss those
pixels in gaming, but heck, it was cheap! Wifey is happy with my old 19" CRT
though. 8-)
> OT posts are my favorite. Personally, I don't really "get" widescreen
> monitors (or TVs for that matter). Aside from Excel, I can't think of a
> single program in which I frequently find myself scrolling from side to
> side. Almost all of my scrolling is done vertically. So, the additional
> width does not really gain much. Additionally, when you're talking about
> physical space on a desk, unless you're working in a crawl space, you're
> going to reach your width limit before you reach your height limit. So, if
> you maintain a 16:9 aspect ratio, you actually wind up losing screen space.
>
> Maybe I'm just pessimistic, but I see 16:9 just as that - losing height, not
> gaining width. This is also part of the reason that I won't install any
> toolbars in my browsers and run as few toolbars as possible in any
> applications that I use. Here I am using a widescreen laptop, and if I were
> to install all these toolbars that are constantly trying to get forcefed
> down my throat, every web page I'd go to would have four feet of white space
> on either side of the content (or one side) and be only about 1" high of
> actual content, especially when you consider all the arrogant logos that
> designers like to waste vertical space with on web pages.
>
> As for TV's, I have an entertainment center, and in it, I have a TV that is
> as wide as I can get into it. Above the TV, I have about 8 inches of space.
> This is a 4:3 TV. If I were to replace it with a 16:9 TV, I would indeed be
> losing height, not gaining width, since I've reached my width limit.
>
> So, if you get the widescreens, just make sure they're able to be rotated 90
> degrees for your cynical employees like me. :)
>
> Ray
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:windows2000-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Sorin Srbu
>
>
> Could you guys give me a few good arguments I could tell my boss in order to
> get something like a 24" widescreen (feels like widescreens would be ideal
> for
> this purpose) with at least about 1900x1200 or some such.
>
>
>
> *****************************
> New Site from The Kenzig Group!
> Windows Vista Links, list options
> and info are available at:
> http://www.VistaPop.com
> *****************************
> To Unsubscribe, set digest or vacation
> mode or view archives use the below link.
>
> http://thethin.net/win2000list.cfm
Other related posts:
