I narrowed down my choices to Dell UltraSharp 2007FP and 2007WFP. Both
are 20" with the latter being wide, but it looks like the non-wide
2007FP has greater surface area (width x height).
I understand that the "wide" aspect is more popular these days and I
think it's really good for development but web browsing is not so good
on "wide" screens as most web pages are not designed for the wide
aspect.
I currently have an UltraSharp 1908FP and it's great but I wonder if I
can get something even better in 20" format.
"SQ" <onestatusquo@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e9db2cf1-04a7-4627-849b-1ab107a9ca54@d1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> I narrowed down my choices to Dell UltraSharp 2007FP and 2007WFP. Both
> are 20" with the latter being wide, but it looks like the non-wide
> 2007FP has greater surface area (width x height).
Correct. Most monitor buyers don't understand that the wide aspect ratio
monitors are squashed, vertically. So your choices are a big square or a
narrow rectangle. Ok, maybe that's a bit of an over-simplification. But at
the same diagonal measure, the 4:3 aspect ratio monitor is a better deal,
assuming the price is similar.
>
> I understand that the "wide" aspect is more popular these days and I
> think it's really good for development but web browsing is not so good
> on "wide" screens as most web pages are not designed for the wide
> aspect.
> I currently have an UltraSharp 1908FP and it's great but I wonder if I
> can get something even better in 20" format.
>
Upgrading from 19" to 20"? You won't notice a difference. Unless you go
widescreen. Then your new 20" monitor will feel smaller than your old 19"
monitor. -Dave
SQ wrote:
> I narrowed down my choices to Dell UltraSharp 2007FP and 2007WFP. Both
> are 20" with the latter being wide, but it looks like the non-wide
> 2007FP has greater surface area (width x height).
>
> I understand that the "wide" aspect is more popular these days and I
> think it's really good for development but web browsing is not so good
> on "wide" screens as most web pages are not designed for the wide
> aspect.
>
> I currently have an UltraSharp 1908FP and it's great but I wonder if I
> can get something even better in 20" format.
The wide format LCD displays are more popular today because a lot of
people are using the computer as a home theater device and watching high
quality videos, which look better in wide screen, since that is the
native format.
If you aren't into movies, or videos much, a standard, 4:3 ratio 20"
monitor will have a larger display area than a 20" wide screen display.
On Aug 5, 12:48 pm, "RobV" <r...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> If you aren't into movies, or videos much, a standard, 4:3 ratio 20"
> monitor will have a larger display area than a 20" wide screen display.
I have a dedicated HDTV so don't need a monitor to watch movies on.
But if I did, I think 24" wide would be the one-size-does-all choice.
It's however absolutely huge. I couldn't take advantage of its size I
think.
You cannot stretch a window side to side and have the contents display
correctly. Two maybe, but what for, if you are not a developer.
I looked at 22" wide, by UltraSharp. It has the same height as my 19"
Ultrasharp but is 4" wider. It has marginally more real estate than
20" non-wide.
That's what I am trying to decide between, 22" wide or 20" non-wide.
I am leaning towards Dell UltraSharp 2007FP, the non-wide model.
In message
<450e0219-40d7-4270-8627-428d451c3b90@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com> SQ
<onestatusquo@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Aug 5, 12:48 pm, "RobV" <r...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> If you aren't into movies, or videos much, a standard, 4:3 ratio 20"
>> monitor will have a larger display area than a 20" wide screen display.
>
>I have a dedicated HDTV so don't need a monitor to watch movies on.
>
>But if I did, I think 24" wide would be the one-size-does-all choice.
>It's however absolutely huge. I couldn't take advantage of its size I
>think.
>You cannot stretch a window side to side and have the contents display
>correctly. Two maybe, but what for, if you are not a developer.
I'm currently running two 24" one above the other, which is absolutely
perfect.
Even just having a full document or source email open on the left while
composing a new message on the right is worth it.
The reason I have two is that I work remotely and normally have one
remoted into another PC for work, with the second being used for
testing.
>Even just having a full document or source email open on the left while
>composing a new message on the right is worth it.
>
>The reason I have two is that I work remotely and normally have one
>remoted into another PC for work, with the second being used for
>testing.
In message <dulk94hit4f9dh8vatu7b6ljufgvv32b18@4ax.com> me@privacy.net
wrote:
>DevilsPGD <spam_narf_spam@crazyhat.net> wrote:
>
>>I'm currently running two 24" one above the other, which is absolutely
>>perfect.
>
>what brand and models?
Samsung SyncMaster 245B. It has a bit of a vertical tilt colour shift,
but I angled the monitors appropriately.
Dell UltraSharp: 20" vs. 20" wide? 
Linear Mode
