38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
38 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

What screen size and aspect ratio are you using?

by Rolliesworld
33 replies
I want to buy a new LCD screen to plug into my Toshiba laptop which has a 14.1" screen on 1280x800 resolution = 16:10 (1.6:1) aspect ratio.

I am realising that almost all monitors come in 16:9 format these days (1280*720, 1920*1080, etc). Long are gone the times of 4:3 (1.33:1) i.e. 640*480, 800*600, 1024*768, 1600*1200 etc, or even 5:4 (1.25:1), i.e. 1280*1024.

It seems the industry is pushing this, and gamers and video fanatics appear to be loving it.

But what about a screen that is meant to show more vertical space, like an A4 paper, or the way websites are designed (vertical not horizontal).

It seems even 16:10 is dying out ... I cannot find any wide screen that would at least give me some more vertical space, i.e. 1920*1200.

I do see the advantage of being able to potentially having two browser windows side by side, but that may only make sense with the larger screen sizes (i.e. 23").

Is anybody else having the same thoughts?
What screen are you guys using?

Thanks for some ideas, I live in Brisbane and don't want to spend way more than $200.
#aspect #ratio #screen #size
  • Profile picture of the author mywebwork
    Well as the "Big Picture Person" you probably want as big a screen as you can get!

    As a software developer I have a collection of screens of all sizes. It's becoming more of a challenge to create sites that look as good on a huge widescreen monitor as they do on a small screen. Now with the popularity of netbooks (actually I'm writing this post on a netbook) and mobile devices it becomes even more challenging.

    For my main work I like as big a monitor as I can get, so that I can have several windows open at once. I still make use of an old 22 inch CRT (yes CRT!) at 1600 x 1200, and a few 17 inch notebooks at 1440 x 900. But I also have another older monitor set at 800 x 600 - again to make sure my stuff looks good on any users monitor.

    Bill
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601019].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
      Originally Posted by mywebwork View Post

      Well as the "Big Picture Person" you probably want as big a screen as you can get!

      Bill
      Haha...I nearly feel off my chair .
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601393].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Josh Anderson
    4096x1152

    (2 x 2048x1125)
    Signature
    Nanacast Review
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601112].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author TermsB
    I personally use 1680 x 1050.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601260].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SuiteJ
      Originally Posted by TermsB View Post

      I personally use 1680 x 1050.
      I use 1680x1050 as well with an Apple Cinema Display, and also have a Macbook at 1280x800 to combine as dual screen. Works fine for me, keeping all my itunes/chat stuff out of the way on the smaller Macbook screen while I'm working on projects.

      Lately, I've been thinking about splurging for two (I'd actually prefer to have 3 all together) Apple Cinema Displays though.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601310].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author theemperor
        I recently purchased a monitor for my laptop 1920 * 1080, because the laptop screen couldn't fit enough of a web page for me to look and use the FireBug plugin to check if a link is NoFollow :-)

        I find the width useful, I can have a web page on the left hand side, and notepad on the right to copy and paste thing from/to. E.g. if filling in similar forms on different sites.

        At work (day job) I have 2 * 1600*1200 monitors, giving an effective resolution of 3200*1200. I am not suggesting anyone needs that but it is useful for software development, so you can have a database session and coding environment on 2 different monitors.
        Signature
        Learn to code faster, and remove the roadblocks. Get stuff done and shipped! PM me and I can help you with programming tutoring, specialising in Web and the following languages: Javascript ~ HTML ~ CSS ~ React ~ JQuery ~ Typescript ~ NodeJS ~ C#.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601328].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
          Originally Posted by theemperor View Post


          I find the width useful, I can have a web page on the left hand side, and notepad on the right to copy and paste thing from/to. E.g. if filling in similar forms on different sites.
          Yes, that is a good point. But one web page in one single web browser window, fully expanded still looks kind of lost on a wide screen monitor, don't you think? In the good old days of 4:3 monitors, I think I'd prefer a dual set up with that ratio, so when I need to work on multiple applications/windows at once, I can switch both monitors on, if not just use one and avoid that wasted space to either side of a web page.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601409].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author theemperor
            Originally Posted by Rolliesworld View Post

            Yes, that is a good point. But one web page in one single web browser window, fully expanded still looks kind of lost on a wide screen monitor, don't you think? In the good old days of 4:3 monitors, I think I'd prefer a dual set up with that ratio, so when I need to work on multiple applications/windows at once, I can switch both monitors on, if not just use one and avoid that wasted space to either side of a web page.
            This is true, and also when designing pages I have to remember that not everyone can see as wide as I can, and take that into consideration.

            One plus is that the annoying War Room triangle i well out of the way when browsing this forum (when I browse WF not logged in).
            Signature
            Learn to code faster, and remove the roadblocks. Get stuff done and shipped! PM me and I can help you with programming tutoring, specialising in Web and the following languages: Javascript ~ HTML ~ CSS ~ React ~ JQuery ~ Typescript ~ NodeJS ~ C#.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601488].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
      Originally Posted by TermsB View Post

      I personally use 1680 x 1050.
      Is that on a 21.5" or 22" screen?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601398].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulie888
    I'm currently running two laptops, the first being an older Sony PCG-GRT with a 4:3 XBrite 16.1" screen at SXGA+ resolution (1400X1050) and a newer Dell Inspiron with a 16:10 Trubrite 15.4" screen at WXGA resolution (1280X800). I tend to prefer the higher resolution screens, I'm eyeing the brand new Sony F-series for my next laptop with a 16:9 XBrite 16.4" screen at UWXGA resolution (1920X1080), which also happens to be 1080p.
    Signature
    >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601282].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulie888
    I forgot to add that the more "vertical" aspect ratios are dying out (4:3 and 16:10), so if I were you, I'd just try to get a 16:9 screen at a higher resolution (1920X1080), I know the highest end professional monitors at 2560X1440 are way out of your reach if your budget is only $200.
    Signature
    >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601287].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
      Originally Posted by paulie888 View Post

      I forgot to add that the more "vertical" aspect ratios are dying out (4:3 and 16:10), so if I were you, I'd just try to get a 16:9 screen at a higher resolution (1920X1080), I know the highest end professional monitors at 2560X1440 are way out of your reach if your budget is only $200.
      Hi paulie888, yes I was considering this, but if widescreens are all that is available these days I think I would prefer 16:10, i.e. 1920x1200.
      Not sure about the USA, but here in Australia it is as easy to find as a needle in a hay stack - they are all 16:9.

      As if everyone was only playing games or watching videos on their computers.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601402].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author paulie888
        Rollie, it's the same here in the US! I have read that it is quite a bit cheaper for manufacturers to produce the 16:9 aspect monitors (versus 16:10), and people seem to love them, so this is definitely the direction the industry is headed in. I occasionally see 16:10 monitors around, but they're a dying breed and more expensive than the (now) mainstream 16:9 monitors. If you can snap up a 16:10 with 1920X1200 resolution at $200 or below, you had better grab it because it's on its way out!


        Originally Posted by Rolliesworld View Post

        Hi paulie888, yes I was considering this, but if widescreens are all that is available these days I think I would prefer 16:10, i.e. 1920x1200.
        Not sure about the USA, but here in Australia it is as easy to find as a needle in a hay stack - they are all 16:9.

        As if everyone was only playing games or watching videos on their computers.
        Signature
        >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601621].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AffiliateKungfu
          When you have a large screen eg. 1920 *1080 or more resolution on a 24"monitor, aspect ratio practically becomes an irrelevant issue.

          With such a high resolution, any two webpages today can fit comfortably side by side in 2 windows, though to accomodate two 1280p-wide webpages exactly on one screen, one would need a 2560p monitor resolution.

          Having been using a 25" monitor (Hansa) on 1920*1080 resolution with my notebook for quite a while now (initially for my forex trading activities), I will not be able to live without this setup.

          By the way, by adding a a Blue-Ray drive, I can also take a bit of time off from my IM activities to watch HD movies on full-screen. Life has never been so good for a cave-girl like me.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601676].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author gottahave
    Check out Online Computer Store - Umart online® Your one stop Computer Shop for computer parts,notebook and new system. There's a store in Brisbane and here on the Gold Coast plus interstate. If necessary give them a call or drop into their shop if possible. It will give you a good idea what's available locally.

    Neil
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601301].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Ralf Skirr
      I use a two monitor system.
      1st monitor: 1600x900
      2nd montior: 1280 x 800

      In a 2 monitor setup actually it's smarter two have both the same hight, but that's just how it happened... :-)

      Ralf
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601309].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
      Originally Posted by gottahave View Post

      Check out Online Computer Store - Umart online® Your one stop Computer Shop for computer parts,notebook and new system. There's a store in Brisbane and here on the Gold Coast plus interstate. If necessary give them a call or drop into their shop if possible. It will give you a good idea what's available locally.

      Neil
      Hi Neil, thanks I checked out their website a few days ago. They are in Milton (CBD) for Brisbane. Still, I did not find any 16:10 monitors. I might give them a call tomorrow. Thanks for the tip, anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601406].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MJ Sterling
    I'm using a 17 inch monitor at 1440 x 900, laptop.

    It does me alright and is great for working in Photoshop and Dreamweaver.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1601779].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Barry Unruh
      Since you're interested in page length, why don't you buy one of the LCD Monitors which rotate. You can turn the width into height, and be able to read a full sales page on one screen.

      Suddenly you could have a 24" monitor with a 1200x1920 resolution. When you need normal viewing, must swivel it back.

      HP makes monitors which can do this.
      Signature
      Brain Drained...Signature Coming Soon!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602221].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author matts5150
        I've been running dual 28"'s with 1680 x 1050 tweaked with a spyder2pro for over a year, I'm thinking of actually downsizing however the brightness is a little much.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602273].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author AffiliateKungfu
          Originally Posted by matts5150 View Post

          I've been running dual 28"'s with 1680 x 1050 tweaked with a spyder2pro for over a year, I'm thinking of actually downsizing however the brightness is a little much.

          That's true.

          Unless one really has use of such a large desktop space, it doesn't serve much purpose.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602283].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author AffiliateKungfu
        .


        Yea,

        And using that vertical HP monitor to view this forum is the ultimate experience in life!... seriously.

        .
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602275].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author digigo
    2x1280x1024.. never care much for 16:9 .. too wide and what i really want is vertical space..so i do not have to scroll much..
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602310].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Jared Woodruff
    You can actually rotate a monitor 90 degrees to increase the vertical space so it is more like a sheet of paper. The display settings to do that are hardware a driver specific, but it should be a simple task if you have the monitor stand that allows a rotation of some sort.

    For example, a 1600x900 widescreen can be converted to a 900x1600 tall-screen with the correct display settings. Many artists and web designers do this. All they do it flip the screen, mess with some settings, and presto.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602500].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author DogScout
    2 1400 x 910 24 inch monitors and one old 21 inch 1260 x 1024

    I want to get a 60 inch and run it around 2800 x 1800!
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1602532].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulie888
    Just to let everyone know, there is a new portable monitor coming out (which uses a single USB port for both power and data!) that can be attached to your laptop (or regular monitor), and makes it really easy to expand your workspace. It's only 10.1" at 1024X600, so it's a really easy (and portable way) to increase your screen real estate whenever you need it - CINQ +
    Signature
    >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1604172].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author AffiliateKungfu
      .

      That should be nice ...

      It will be like one's carrying a stack of books when one is on the move with the notebook and additional screen.

      I'm sure very soon they'll come up with a foldable version, then one can have 3 screenfuls of joy!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1604507].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Quentin
    Here are my stats from over 4,000 visitis last week.

    1. 1024x768 1,040 23.27%

    2. 1280x800 780 17.45%

    3. 1280x1024 586 13.11%

    4. 1440x900 549 12.28%

    5. 1680x1050 367 8.21%

    6. 1920x1200 165 3.69%

    7. 1366x768 155 3.47%

    8. 1152x864 111 2.48%

    9. 1920x1080 109 2.44%

    10. 1280x768 78 1.75%

    Quentin
    Signature
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1604559].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author N4PGW
    21" 1600X900 16:9 Makes a great screen for viewing widescreen movies.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1604578].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author paulie888
    @N4PGV - there's no doubt about that a 27" 1920X1080 widescreen is even better for viewing full HD movies. However, we are talking about work and productivity here, which is a whole different ballgame!
    Signature
    >>> Features Jason Fladlien, John S. Rhodes, Justin Brooke, Sean I. Mitchell, Reed Floren and Brad Gosse! <<<
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1605108].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
    Thanks everyone for so much interesting feedback.

    Does anyone know a computer shop with a proper LCD Monitor display?

    I contacted Umart and MSY and neither have any store display.
    I have been to Clive Anthonys - all screens hooked up to one computer at the same resolution.
    I have also been to JB Hifi - I could see a 24" screen at 1920x1080 in action which was good as I installed MS-Word on it to see how it looks with two pages side by side (it 'almost' fits on the screen at 100%) and font size etc, whereas a smaller 21.5" would not be able to fit two pages side by side. Is this always the case?

    I have a stupid question: When I see 'so much' of a webpage on my laptop screen (14.1" at 1280x800), then I would see 'more' at higher resolutions, i.e. 1920x1080 (16:9) or 1920x1200 (16:10) etc - correct?
    OK, I found this Screen resolution simulator that helps show the difference in 'how much' of a webpage you can see in each respective resolution, but what confuses me is that the content (fonts, tables etc) are displayed in exactly the same size no matter what resolution you pick. I thought a webpage or anything for that matter would become smaller on your screen the higher the resolution gets, or does that apply only to the same screen size? Sorry, I am confused...

    BTW I also found this nice online tool which helps determine what screen size you are currently using: What is my screen resolution - checker
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1613379].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author tomcam
    Apple Cinema 30" is 2560 x 1600. It's fantastic for working in Word or Photoshop in one window and doing web research in another. You need a $100 graphics card (or a MacBook Pro) and a proper DVI connection. I normally don't recommend such high priced items but I have had tremendous success. High quality monitor = dramatically lower eye fatigue.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1613738].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Rolliesworld
      Originally Posted by tomcam View Post

      30" is 2560 x 1600
      That would be WAY to large of a monitor for me.
      I think I would want to balance the size of a monitor with how easy it is to read things.

      At my day Job, I am quite comfortable with a 19" HP L1925 (5:4 in 1280x1024) which gives me a nice vertical space without wasting on unused horizontal space (5:4 is FANTASTIC for web & office - better than 4:3, which is logical as in the former case you get 80% of the width in height, and in the latter it would be 75%).

      I have the feeling that I have the same result as on a 21.5" screen which is usually 16:9, in 1920x1080 resolution. Makes sense, as the difference in vertical space is marginal.

      I would not mind going 16:10, in 1920x1200, to have even slightly more vertical space (would that be so?) and having the 50% extra horizontal space may be a benefit IF a second browser window or Word/PDF would fit side by side. Not sure if it would at what monitor size, though.

      Still unclear if a webpage or Word/PDF document would "shrink" the smaller the screen is? Or in other words: would I see "as much" of a webpage or Word/PDF document on a 21.5" as I would on a 23" or 24" if they are set at the same resolution, just smaller/"shrunk" on the smaller monitors? I mean, they would all be at 1920x1080 these days, wouldn't they?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[1613846].message }}

Trending Topics