DaveW on 29/6/2007 at 18:32
Quote:
That's not only one website, that's every stores. I'm serious, go check to a local store and you'll notice most monitors are now widescreen. Last year, widescreen models were an exception, now they are the norm. 4:3 monitors are disappearing very fast from the market. The transition is even faster than the one from CRT to LCD.
As I said, just because more are being made it doesn't mean more are in use. As the Steam survey shows (and hell, that's among
gamers, not the
millions of home users that are using older monitors that will be 4:3).
Quote:
Also, the same way people replaced their perfectly working CRT monitor for a trendy 17" LCD, they are now replacing their 17" LCD for a 22" widescreen. I would be very surprised if widescreen do not reach 50% in less than three years, particularly if prices continue to drop.
CRT to LCD, fair enough - that's a clear trend that can be seen today - although a lot of home users still use CRT actually (not everyone suddenly switched). I would like to see evidence to prove your claims that 22" is replacing 4:3 though, because you haven't actually provided any. That pretty much sums up my 'rebuttal' - you haven't actually given any evidence to support what you're saying...
Negativeliberty, if they don't sell as well, it's not worh the cheaper production cost is it? ;)
Papy on 29/6/2007 at 19:01
I give up. Whatever you say, you are right.
DaveW on 29/6/2007 at 19:33
I just asked you to actually give some evidence for your claims, jeez.
heywood on 29/6/2007 at 21:48
Come on now, let's not turn every thread into a pissing contest.
I don't have a crystal ball, but I have a feeling that widescreen computing is just a fad. The amount of time people spend using their computers for email, web surfing, MS Office, and various business uses dwarfs gaming and movie watching (which most people use TVs for). I just don't buy into all the multimedia convergence hype that Apple and Microsoft have been pushing.
But if I'm wrong and 4:3 dies out, I sure hope that somebody still offers widescreen CRT monitors, because I strongly prefer a CRT for gaming.
DaveW on 30/6/2007 at 00:40
Why's that then? I never really noticed any difference between the two when I switched (except the screen wasn't curved like my old 17" CRT).
I have the best of both worlds anyway, 22" widescreen with a 19" 4:3 to the right of it :D. The widescreen is more useful in most respects - since the resolution's bigger I can have bigger Viewports in 3d Studio Max and such - and it's better than having a giant 4:3 monitor (any bigger than 19" 4:3 would be a bit harder to use for me). But considering most people aren't likely to stray from standard 19" monitors I don't think widescreen is going to take over.
heywood on 30/6/2007 at 15:03
I have an old high-end 19" flat trinitron CRT that weighs something like 75 lbs. and takes up a lot of room. I'd love to replace it, but I haven't seen an LCD panel yet that looks as good on games, especially dark, shadowy games.
LCDs have improved a lot, but right now good CRTs still have better blacks and truer colors, at least to my eyes. Also, big LCDs still suffer from inconsistent lighting to a certain degree, because the viewing angle varies from one part of the screen to another. For older games, I also like the fact that CRTs look good over a range of resolutions, not just a single native resolution. For newer games, that's probably a non-issue because the games will be designed to run at standard widescreen resolutions.
For non-gaming uses, it's a whole different story. I love the sharpness of an LCD for reading text, and there is much less eye fatigue after sitting in front of an LCD all day compared to a CRT.
Pyrian on 1/7/2007 at 09:53
Quote Posted by Pyrian
Quote Posted by hayaku
...quite soon 4:3 will simply no longer exist.
I'm vaguely curious as to what "quite soon" means in this context. If they stopped making 4:3 altogether, there'll still be some in use a decade later, I guarantee it.
Quote Posted by Papy
Of course, there will be people who will still use 4:3 monitors 10 years from now... The same way there are people who still use a 15" CRT with a PIII/450Mhz. So ?
So nothing except that you agree with my assessment that hayaku was wrong.
negativeliberty on 3/7/2007 at 21:40
Quote Posted by DaveW
Negativeliberty, if they don't sell as well, it's not worh the cheaper production cost is it? ;)
Source? (wrong person to ask, I know, but with such a one-liner response I had to try) Last I checked LG and AUO were making a killing off widescreen panels (20"-22"-24"-27"-"30). Don't know why you put 22" panels opposite to 4:3 AR (after all, the former is a panel size, the latter an aspect ratio only used in legacy CRT models), but if we put widescreen vs. fullscreen, it's not hard to tell which one's selling like hotcakes.
Actually they're selling so well and prices are dropping so quickly that 22" widescreen LCDs are now becoming entry level while 24"-30" widescreen is becoming mid- and high-end, respectively.
Also, if widescreen is "just a fad" - why are there no 4:3 HD resolutions being adopted? I mean, there's 1280x720 and 1900x1200, but there's no "legacy" 4:3 HD resolution. Also, good luck finding a consumer LCD larger than 21" at 4:3 (semi-pro and pro monitors not withstanding - as I said those usually cost more than a good car), there may be a couple (mainly 2 and 3 year old models) but when you change your criteria from 4:3 to 16:9/16:10 suddenly there's a shitload of choices, from all brands (btw, don't go nuts searching for that non-widescreen 4:3 LCD, they're usually 5:4 ;) Which by the way is, also one more example of a panel size that came to be popular because the producers could cut more 5:4 panels than 4:3 panels from a single glass sheet).
You apparently seem to think that widescreen isn't selling well, fortunately I learned from other posts by your person that I should not wait around for you to properly support that argument with proof, so I won't. In fact - hypothetically - I think I could quote an article which said the last 4:3 monitor was rolling off the assembly line in ten years time - and you'd probably still be trying to convince me that it's all just a fad, and that 4:3 would make a huge comeback.
Edit@Pyrian; correct me if I'm wrong, but he 'conceded' that LCDs were selling better than CRTs.
Pyrian on 3/7/2007 at 22:04
Quote Posted by DaveW
As I said, just because more are being made it doesn't mean more are in use. As the Steam survey shows (and hell, that's among
gamers, not the
millions of home users that are using older monitors that will be 4:3).
Quote Posted by negativeliberty
You apparently seem to think that widescreen isn't selling well, fortunately I learned from other posts by your person that I should not wait around for you to properly support that argument with proof, so I won't.
Actually, in the very post you quoted, he conceded that widescreens were selling better and pointed to evidence that supported his assertion that 4:3 was still more widespread.
Anyway, from personal experience I'm going to have to support Nameless's assertion that widescreen sucks for legacy gaming. :( It's been awfully nice for Dark Messiah, though! :D
heywood on 3/7/2007 at 22:42
Quote Posted by negativeliberty
Also, if widescreen is "just a fad" - why are there no 4:3 HD resolutions being adopted? I mean, there's 1280x720 and 1900x1200, but there's no "legacy" 4:3 HD resolution.
Because HD is for televisions. There seems to be an assumption that what's good for television is also good for computing, but I'm not convinced of that. Besides, HDTV resolutions (1280x720, 1920x1080) are different from widescreen computer monitor resolutions (1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, etc.)
