> > >4) WS vs 4:3 > > > >These WS LCDs seem to offer less vertical real estate with increased > >horizontal space. However, two 4:3s running at 1600 x 1200 offer way > more > >horizontal space than even the largest WS that is affordable. Do any > of > >you prefer dual 4:3s vs either dual WS or just a big WS? I'm just > >wondering what's the best way to go if I end up buying a new LCD to > deal > >with the problems mentioned above. > > I fear that this is true in a WS display screen. I do believe that WS > screens are fabricated to do (or be ready to do) HDTV-like video > projection. Could be wrong, but from the comments I read here, it > seems to > be a reasonable conclusion. Not an answer I know, JMO. If you intent > is > HDTV go WS for a display. If your intent is just-plain-PC go standard > 4:3 > LCD screens. The ability to run dual (or more) screens off the single > video card are not screen dependent from what I read from this List's > Screen Mavens. Still reading and learning...... > Best, > Duncan > >
Monitor configuration really does depend greatly on what you're doing and what your preference is. For example, some developers prefer WS monitors for writing code, but of those, some run portrait mode (more lines on the screen than 4:3) and some prefer landscape mode (more characters on a line). Others still prefer old 4:3. The same holds true for two of each. We even have one guy at work that runs a 4:3 in landscape and a 16:10 (PC WS LCDs are 16:10, not 16:9 like HDTVs) in portrait mode. I run two 20" 4:3 LCDs at work, and a 24" WS + 20" WS at home. I wouldn't want two WS displays at work, but I wouldn't want two 4:3 displays at home. It just varies that much. The only certainty, though, is that dual screens are universally better than a single screen, unless it's a 30" WS vs 2x 15". :) Greg
