From: nospam on 14 Nov 2009 16:09
In article <Xns9CC3D000C4F5FC9A7(a)127.0.0.1>, Gordon Freeman
> In that case I think he has a point. Personally I think the fact that
> manufacturers have moved over to exclusivly producing widescreen monitors
> is stupid, since what we tend to need is more height to fit in the plethora
> of toolbars, status bars, etc across the top/bottom of every program
> window, and to see our vertical format pictures better. Widescreen is ok
> for movies and that's about it. With my present 22" 4:3 monitor I have
> 1600x1200 pixels, if I bought one of the same size now it would be 1680 x
> 1050 pixels which loses me 150 pixels in height for the dubious benefit of
> 80 extra on the width. So vertical pictures will show even smaller than
> before. What I'd rather have is a square monitor 1600x1600, this would take
> up no more desk space, since extra height is free as far as space use is
> concerned, yet it would show all pictures equally sized.
buy a display with 1920 x 1200 pixels and you'll have the same height
as you do now with additional space for other stuff on the side. or go
full hog and get a 2560 x 1600 display or rotate what you have now.
> For document viewing too, vertical format is better because you can see
> more of the document in a usable way. More width does not help beyond a
> certain point because line length becomes excessive so it's harder to read
> (which is why newspapers and magazines are divided into columns because the
> pages are too wide for comfortable reading otherwise). Already I typically
> have browsers and word processor windows at only half screen width, whilst
> I do use the full screen height, so a tall narrow monitor would make sense
> unless I want two windows open at once.
more width does not mean that the text will reflow to fit the width,
and you can still have narrow columns, just as before. however, it does
mean you can view two or more pages at once. why be stuck with just one
page at a time?