16x9 aspect ratio display

[Bill Gradwohl]

Jim Higson wrote:

>I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at 
>all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it 
>comes from Windows/Linux or anything else.
>
>I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the 
>computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good 
>bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate 
>the DVI spec) you won't have any problems.
>  
>
After reading about all the nvidia problems, I'm just trying to find a 
board/display that works. I'm not certain that DVI is the way to go or not.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, 
in practice, there is. 
    Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut

In theory you're right, but in practice, it makes a difference. Some 
displays are better than others, or else there would only be one 
manufacturer. www.tomshardware.com provides some input, but they are 
Windows centric. O/S's these days try to get the make and model of the 
display from the hardware itself to help configure the video system. My 
current old 20" monitor is too stupid to supply such data. I'd like to 
find one that both Windows and Linux can recognize.

>>Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via
>>emacs. More info per eye full.
>>    
>>
>
>Really? 
>
>Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square 
>equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The 
>16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels.
>
>At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although 
>wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is 
>16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
>
>  
>
This is personal preference more than anything else, and I may end up 
not liking the wider format. I've not tried it yet. :-) That's why I'm 
asking for input from folks who have already made the leap.

Although I agree with your arithmetic, metaphorically speaking you 
advocate purchasing a Ferrari because it has more horsepower than the 
SUV. I want to try an SUV.

I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if I 
were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its 
just not comfortable for me. I find I always want the width more than 
the height. A piece of information is usually listed horizontally, not 
vertically. I'd like to read the log lines in one eye full as opposed to 
scrolling right for example.

I'd also like to stop my self imposed practice of writing code \
limiting each line to around 80 columns. That's from my 026 \
keypunch days on a mainframe. With a wider screen, its more\
likely I'll use the width to put an entire thought on one line as \
opposed to doing line continuations because theres a better chance \
that the line will hold the entire thought. i.e long if statements, etc.

Like it or not, HDTV format will take over in my opinion. I've already 
seen some laptops, Toshiba I believe, and they're georgeous, except they 
still use those miserable tiny keyboards (lots of empty space left and 
right of the keys - what's the point of that). Since one of my TVs quit, 
and my 1995 vintage 20" heats the room I'm in (literally), I figured its 
time to lower my electric bill, get rid of the radiation, and get a more 
modern form factor all at the same time. I'm just not sure what to get.

-- 
Bill Gradwohl
bill at ycc.com
http://www.ycc.com
spamSTOMPER Protected email