A
André Coutanche
Owain said:
Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)
André Coutanche
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)
André Coutanche
R
RR2006
charles said:Yes, my 20" Dell does this.
Even my HP do this and automatically detect when you rotate the monitor to
adjust the image. If I remember well, this feature is called "pivot".
O
Owain
André Coutanche said:Indeed. Pythagoras, anyone? ;-)
The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws on the
other two sides?
Owain
B
b33k34
Bazzer said:I am probably thinking a big standard shape monitor would be best?
I incidently I have a Freecom DTTV stick so I sometime watch TV
on my PC, but the monitor shape is not really a problem as you watch in
a nicely framed box, you don't get black ugly bars wasteing space as you
do on a proper TV.
If you watch a reasonable amount of TV on it then i'd go for a
widescreen. 17" is usable but doesn't have a huge amount of vertical
space - for a desk a 19 or 20" widesceen is nice and will let you work
two docs side by side (or a document and email say). You can move the
windows bar to the side to maximise the amount of vertical workspace.
It also depends on how much you're going to spend - w/s monitors tend
to cost more and i'd go for a really good 4:3 over a 'budget' w/s
Widescreens on laptops are a terrible idea as theres just not enough
vertical height on a 15" screen (above that and they're not really
portable). I think a 12" 4:3 screen for a laptop you regularly carry
and a 15" for one you carry less often.
J
John Cartmell
The squaw on the hippopotamus is equal to the sum of the squaws on the
other two sides?
hides ;-)
R
Roderick Stewart
16:9 is a horrid ratio to watch TV on because the screen ratio feels
completely wrong. It's too wide for the golden ratio and its too narrow for
Panavision so films cropped to fit into it look odd.
As far as I know, nobody makes any programme material, film or electronic,
designed for "golden ratio".
Rod.
R
Roderick Stewart
Why are so many laptops in Currys/Dixons/Comet etc widescreen? The
dork in Comet told me internet pages are designed for widescreen...
Yes, films fit it better but for everything else it's just the loss of
height, which you need for web pages and documents.
It allows them to specify the screen size with an impressively big
number, even though the screen is actually slightly smaller in area than
a conventionally shaped one would be on a similarly sized laptop.
One possible advantage on a laptop is that a shorter screen is a little
more mechanically stable so won't flap about so much.
Rod.
S
Slurp
H
Hawkins
Pressing F11 on most browser set ups will remove the 2 to 3 toolbars at the
top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press will
bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to display
vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the effect of F 11
in this configuration.
Richard.
top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press will
bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to display
vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the effect of F 11
in this configuration.
Richard.
B
b33k34
Hawkins said:Pressing F11 on most browser set ups will remove the 2 to 3 toolbars at the
top of the screen and also the main bar at the bottom. A second press will
bring them back again. It is also possible to drag the bars to display
vertically at either side of the screen. I have not tried the effect of F 11
in this configuration.
Indeed - f11 is the IE shortcut for fullscreen, presumably copied by
Firefox and others for compatibility. Has various different functions
in M$ desktop apps. Now a quick shortcut to hide all toolbars in Word,
and then get them back again, would be useful but F11 isn't it.
A
Agamemnon
Slurp said:???? the Dell 30" does 2560 x 1600
It needs a dual link DVI graphics card so I can't use it on my present
computer which would need a new motherboard as well as a new graphics card.
Its only 16:10.
If its not 16:9 I can't see any advantage for it over a 4:3 display at
1920x1440.
T
ThePunisher
Agamemnon said:Get a 19 inch or larger CRT that can display up to 1920x1440
resolution or over. Then you will be able to watch HD movies at
1920x1080 and tile 4 wordprocessor or internet explorer windows on
the screen at the same time and have no problems with loss of usable
area. (LCD's only go up to 1600x1200 which is not big enough.)
LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the same
time would be?
D
David Taylor
LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the same
time would be?
A quarter the size of said 19 inch or larger CRT. Have you any idea how
silly that question was?
A
Agamemnon
ThePunisher said:LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the same
time would be?
Since I am using 1920x1440 resolution right now the answer is yes. The size
of each of the windows would be 93% of the window size when expanded to full
screen if you were using 1024x768 resolution. If you overlap the top and
bottom borders of each window and the side scroll bars then you'd be able to
see the same work area you would see at 1024x768 in each quadrant and anyway
there is not need to overlap. You can tile 4 instances of Word with A4
documents selected at 100% and still be able to see the whole of the page
within the standard margins. For most web pages 4 instances of Internet
explorer tiled will display the whole width of the page since most pages are
set to 800 pixels wide.
If you want more you could always use 2048x1536 resolution by my monitor
isn't really designed for that resolution although it can go up to it.
Useful for editing lots of images side by side though or very large spread
sheets where the fonts are not too small.
G
Guest
Most seem to be 5:4.Do yourself a favour. Buy a 19" flat LCD 4.3. You will wonder how you
managed with that old 17" for so long!
B
Bazzer Smith
ThePunisher said:LOL!! have you any idea how small the 4 open windows on screen at the same
time would be?
960X720 bigger than the 800X600 I have been using for the last 10 years.
B
Bazzer Smith
Thanks thats useful. I think forgot how to do that somoe time go!!
K
kony
A quarter the size of said 19 inch or larger CRT. Have you any idea how
silly that question was?
He was making a point, about how poor a choice it would be
to get a larger CRT and have the 4 windows tiled, and he was
quite right, it would be a very poor and clumsy way to work.
"IF" someone actually needed 4 open windows the obvious
choice is two widescreen LCDs.
K
kony
Since I am using 1920x1440 resolution right now the answer is yes. The size
of each of the windows would be 93% of the window size when expanded to full
screen if you were using 1024x768 resolution.
No, not the size, only the # of pixels. BIG difference on a
CRT.
If you overlap the top and
bottom borders of each window and the side scroll bars
It is ridiculous to suggest working like that.
then you'd be able to
see the same work area you would see at 1024x768 in each quadrant and anyway
there is not need to overlap. You can tile 4 instances of Word with A4
documents selected at 100% and still be able to see the whole of the page ...
No, you will be able to see a percentage of the outline of
it, but not be able to discriminate at a per-pixel level
anymore even with all pixels supposedly displayed. That is,
unless your monitor has dual DVI, you sit extremely close to
it, and it has outstanding quality. With all these factors
in place, it's merely a very poor way to work with all that
overlapping and manual adjustment every time a window is
opened.
...within the standard margins. For most web pages 4 instances of Internet
explorer tiled will display the whole width of the page since most pages are
set to 800 pixels wide.
You don't seem to grasp what is obvious to most people. The
goal is not merely to have every pixel on screen, it's to
have them large enough and accurately enough reproduced to
be discernable, individually. If you're not going to to
that, there wasn't any point to it in the first place, you
could merely choose smaller window elements and font sizes.
If you want more you could always use 2048x1536 resolution by my monitor
isn't really designed for that resolution although it can go up to it.
Useful for editing lots of images side by side though or very large spread
sheets where the fonts are not too small.
Why are you suggesting such a horrible way to work? It is
far worse than any other alternative, especially for image
editing because the CRT at high res has terrible contrast
and suffers from bleeding.
A
Agamemnon
kony said:No, not the size, only the # of pixels. BIG difference on a
CRT.
My CRT can go up to 2048x1536 pixels
It is ridiculous to suggest working like that.
I can tile 4 applications such as Word or IE on the screen without need for
overlap since they only require 800x600 resolution to display all that is
required.
No, you will be able to see a percentage of the outline of
it, but not be able to discriminate at a per-pixel level
anymore even with all pixels supposedly displayed. That is,
unless your monitor has dual DVI, you sit extremely close to
it, and it has outstanding quality. With all these factors
in place, it's merely a very poor way to work with all that
overlapping and manual adjustment every time a window is
opened.
I am using a CRT therefore I don't need dual DVI.
You don't seem to grasp what is obvious to most people. The
No, you don't.
goal is not merely to have every pixel on screen, it's to
have them large enough and accurately enough reproduced to
be discernable, individually. If you're not going to to
that, there wasn't any point to it in the first place, you
could merely choose smaller window elements and font sizes.
I can discern every pixel on my display at 1920x1440.
Why are you suggesting such a horrible way to work? It is
No, its a very nice way to work. I have the equivalent of 4 screens on one
19 inch monitor and I don't have to keep maximizing and minimizing in order
to switch applications. Right now I have Outlook Express on the top right,
IE on the top left, live TV on the bottom left and space to write this
message on the bottom right without overlapping or needing to minimize any
of my other applications.
far worse than any other alternative, especially for image
editing because the CRT at high res has terrible contrast
and suffers from bleeding.
My CRT has none of these problems. It has gamma correction as does my
graphics card and does not bleed.