Standard 4:3 vs 16:9 widescreen

Topic

New Reply

I’m not sure but I think there may be others who feel as I do about widescreen monitors having been the only type sold nowadays.  I personally use and like my standard 4:3 Dell 17″ monitor for my computer.  About the only reason I can think to have a widescreen monitor is if you need it for working with spreadsheets and/or placing windows side by side.

I find when I use my widescreen laptop for web browsing, all the additional scrolling becomes annoying.  I’m accustomed to the extra headroom I have with my standard monitor, and most if not all webpages fit nicely on standard.  To me widescreen is for watching movies or TV and I do that occasionally with my laptop from DVD’s.

Personal preferences aside, I wish that standard 4:3 aspect ratio computer monitors would be produced and made available to those of us who want and prefer them for computing.  Thanks for listening and your comments are welcome one way or another.

Even astrophysicist Carl Sagan when speaking astronomically used Billions, not Trillions.

Reply | Quote

Replies

With many widescreen monitors you can rotate them from the usual landscape mode to portrait mode, if you want. That would solve your problem, perhaps.

I must say that having had a Dell 1920×1200 monitor for a few years, I have never bothered rotating it!

I don’t think you are going to see the return of 4×3 ratio monitors; manufacturers assume everyone watches films (movies) on them.

BATcher

Plethora means a lot to me.

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

… it’s been shown pretty conclusively that the 16:9 ratio isn’t very good for anything much, except watching videos.

Unfortunately it’s currently still the entertainment side that drives sales, and anything else gets less economies of scale.

16:10 (1920×1200, 1680×1050, 1440×900) is much better already though sadly out of fashion currently, and I keep hoping that eventually we’d get a sane ratio like 3:2 or even approximately 2:sqrt(2) … hm, wasn’t someone already making an ultraportable in 3:2?

Oh well, nothing keeping you from using just some of the width, except maybe clunky user interfaces… there’s software to help with that too, nVidia Grids comes to mind at least as well as Windock from http://www.ivanyu.ca/windock/ (haven’t tried that one myself, anyone else?)

And Windows 10 has the “snap assist” that makes it easy to semi-maximize a window to the left or right half of your screen, as long as it’s working right. (Though Windows 10 still isn’t particularly good at coping with screen geometry changes…)

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

I did not know that there were still rotating monitors such as BATcher mentioned further up ( #339688 ). Back in the day, there were and were handy, and they certainly would be so these days. Not all videos are in widescreen; classic movies (think: “Seven Samurai” or any other great Kurasawa movies) are all 4×3, or “full screen” as they used to be called in the jackets of DVDs — a format in which I have quite a few movies in my DVD collection.

But there is more than entertainment at issue here: many times buttons and links that one needs to use on a Web page are not seen unless one scrolls down; sometimes I do not realize this is necessary, because the contents of the partial screen look like they are all there is. And then waste time figuring out that is not the case and, on top of that, lose my concentration on what I was really tying to do.

Even when that is not the case, there is quite often more scrolling needed than with the old 4×3 screens, for example when seeing documents in one of the standard formats (Letter, A4, etc.)

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

4:3 LCD monitors are available they are internal or external as required, used in automatic teller machines, medical display applications, printers, some types of testing equipment, etc.

Aspect ratio is still widely used just not many manufacturers request it to be in a laptop like years gone by. It was all they had back then.

A larger QXGA panel might look good, for certain folks that actually value reputation and quality there could be enough room not hobbling battery life and have a motherboard with user replaceable parts.

4 users thanked author for this post.

Myst, Charlie, Elly, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Just did some checking and you can still find standard 4:3 monitors but, from what I saw, most are used or refurbished, and you take a risk buying them from Ebay or even Amazon. Some report they work fine and were happy, but others say “don’t waste your money it died after two days”.  These are separate monitors of course and could be banged up a bit.

How nice it would be to be able to buy a nice new standard monitor that you know will last for a while.

Even astrophysicist Carl Sagan when speaking astronomically used Billions, not Trillions.

1 user thanked author for this post.

OscarCP

Reply | Quote

Yes, there are 4:3 screens still available, even new with a 3-year warranty. (Lenovo 60FB HAR1, HP E4U30AA, …)

It’s just, they’re sort of overpriced for their other features, so sales would be … stagnant…

2 users thanked author for this post.

Charlie, OscarCP

Reply | Quote

I guess it’s what you’re willing to pay for the level of comfort you want.  Back in 2009 I used a Dell E170S monitor at my job and I really liked it.  I was seeing more and more computers come in with widescreen monitors, so I ordered an E170S for myself to use at home.  It stayed in the box unused until 2012 when I got my current Win 7 computer and I’m still using both to this day.

I’d like to do the same now but would like to see what I’m getting before plunking down my money.  I’m always looking to keep ahead of the game so I’ll keep an eye out for what I want.  Who knows, maybe a larger 22″ widescreen will be the answer.

Even astrophysicist Carl Sagan when speaking astronomically used Billions, not Trillions.

Reply | Quote

I have an old Dell XPS desktop. It came with a 19″ 4:3 1280×1024 monitor (huge for its day). I later boiught a refurb HP desktop and it came with a 19″ 16:9 wide screen. I hated the wide screen and used the 4:3 as the widescreen seemed tiny due to less viewable height.

When I build my current PC, I carefully measured the viewable screen only-dimension of the Dell 19′ 4:3 monitor and went shopping. I did not want the height to be smaller than the 19″ 4:3. I ended up with a Viewsonic 27″ 1920×1080 widescreen for far less than the Dell 19″ 4:3 had cost. That was the widescreen size that gave me .5″ more height than the old Dell monitor. I never looked back and am addicted to using word in a 2 full page view as well as spreadsheets and image editing with all the desktop space. It could be calibrated as RGB or using Adobe or Pantone settings. Needless to say gaming was awesome.

I later bought an LG 32″ HDMI 16:9 monitor that is my current display. With the HDMI it is also great for using with the laptops. The 27″ is now being held in reserve for the current machine when the new build gets the 32″.

I do not use any of the PC monitors for watching TV or Movies, except for some limited vids from the iPhones, as our home system is a 60″. To me the idea of TV on a smartphone is laughable if I can watch 60″. For movies, I would far rather have a 16:9 ratio screen with black bars on the side for the full height 4:3 material, than a 4:3 screen with bars on the top and bottom for reduced height 16:9 media.

Reply | Quote

At present I’m using a 32″ flatscreen TV as a monitor, a Vizio E32C1 1080p (bought it on sale, cheaper than a monitor of the same size).  It has two HDMI inputs, a 60Hz refresh rate, and gobs of real estate.  It can present two full pages side by side, no scrolling necessary.

When first setup, it was a bit intimidating by its size, but as soon as I booted my desktop, it took that immediately away.  I can’t envision going to anything smaller in the future, I’ve been spoiled.

Always create a fresh drive image before making system changes/Windows updates; you may need to start over!

We all have our own reasons for doing the things that we do with our systems; we don't need anyone's approval, and we don't all have to do the same things.

We were all once "Average Users".

Computer Specs

Reply | Quote

One other thing I’m thinking to do eventually is connect my 17″ Dell monitor to the VGA port on my Sony laptop.  It has Linux Mint 19.1.  The Dell’s default resolution is 1280 x 1024, the laptop’s widescreen resolution is 1280 x 800.  Will this present any problems?  I’m wondering if the Sony laptop will detect the Dell monitor’s resolution and adapt to it while it’s connected. Hopefully after the Dell is disconnected the laptop will go back to its original default screen resolution.

Sorry if this is a dumb question but the Sony laptop is the first widescreen I’ve ever dealt with.

Even astrophysicist Carl Sagan when speaking astronomically used Billions, not Trillions.

Reply | Quote

@ Charlie

Charlie wrote:

I wish that standard 4:3 aspect ratio computer monitors would be produced and made available to those of us who want and prefer them for computing.

Google can be your friend:

4:3 Monitors

Quoted from TRU-Vu Customizable Industrial LCD Monitors: ( http://www.tru-vumonitors.com/products/4354aspectratio.html )

The trend in consumer-grade LCD monitors and tv’s has obviously been toward wide-screen displays with 16:9 (and 16:10) aspect ratios.

However, many industrial and commercial systems still use traditional 4:3 aspect ratio LCD monitors. This also perfectly matches the 4:3 aspect ratio of their NTSC/PAL analog cameras.

To support these applications, TRU-VuMonitors.com offers a wide range of customizable industrial NTSC LCD monitors in 4:3 aspect ratio (and 5:4). We will continue to provide 4:3 aspect ratio LCD monitors for as long as these LCD panels are manufactured

Can not find a price anywhere, so I suspect these are not cheap options!

Another source (?), again no pricing!

1 user thanked author for this post.

Charlie

Reply | Quote

is not the aspect ratio less important than the good viewing at less than full resoloutions

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

Wavy: Was that meant as a question? If so: The size with which the images (and the letters in written documents) are seen on the screen matters, because: movie images, if they are shown too small, loose some of their appeal and dramatic effect and letters, if too small, may result in uncomfortable eyes and sore necks from constant squinting close to the screen. Seeing them at less than full resolution (as long as this is not too different from full resolution) is, I think,  a comparatively lesser issue, because it is something that one can more easily get used to. And we are talking, I believe, about less than huge monitor screens, where such imperfections could be much more noticeable.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

Oscar
From my limited experience a higher resolution monitor’s native resolution displays text very small. Using windows native options are a mixed bag. I just want to see what I am looking at.
Any info/suggestions very very welcome.

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

Wavy: “From my limited experience a higher resolution monitor’s native resolution displays text very small.”

That is quite true: letters are often made up of grids of pixels with a fixed number of them. More pixels per square inch means both a higher resolution and that the same number of pixels in those grids must cover a smaller surface, making the letters in them appear smaller as well.

Adjusting the monitor to decrease the resolution has the opposite effect.

Another issue to consider is what kind of image scanning, progressive (as in 1280 x 1024p, for example)  or interlaced (1280 x 1024i), works better with a given combination of: the chosen resolution, the PC, and the monitor one is using. I learned that the first time I connected an external 17″ HDMI monitor to a Mac laptop. I imagine this also applies to Windows.

Ex-Windows user (Win. 98, XP, 7); since mid-2017 using also macOS. Presently on Monterey 12.15 & sometimes running also Linux (Mint).

MacBook Pro circa mid-2015, 15" display, with 16GB 1600 GHz DDR3 RAM, 1 TB SSD, a Haswell architecture Intel CPU with 4 Cores and 8 Threads model i7-4870HQ @ 2.50GHz.
Intel Iris Pro GPU with Built-in Bus, VRAM 1.5 GB, Display 2880 x 1800 Retina, 24-Bit color.
macOS Monterey; browsers: Waterfox "Current", Vivaldi and (now and then) Chrome; security apps. Intego AV

Reply | Quote

More ‘resolution’ = less resolution!

Just because you don't know where you are going doesn't mean any road will get you there.

Reply | Quote

Quite a few manufactures make 5:4 monitors.

5:4 Monitors Square Monitors and Displays from LG, Samsung, BenQ and others | CCL Computers

EIZO makes 1920 x 1920 monitors, although they are [awfully] expensive, they are cool.

FlexScan EV2730Q Square LCD Monitor | EIZO

Reply | Quote