Comments on: The myth of width: When wide screens don't work

Dear laptop makers: My computer is not a movie theater. Don't make it shaped like one.

[impatientgirl]

I've never disagreed with you more.

[KillersDad]

So resize the window so the text is 60 characters wide, and start using either the space bar for a page or fn + down arrow for full screen page downs OR just down arrow for scrolling page downs.

Quit making a mountain out of a mole hill and learn your operating system.

[boychuk]

Rafe, before posting this article, please do a bit more research and cover more of the benefits of widescreen. For folks that use all the power of computers have to offer, especially those who do intensive scientific and creative work, widescreen is a must. Programs that these folks use have plenty of toolbars, palettes and panels that have to fit properly in the workspace. Widescreen displays provide this ability to optimize the workspace. 4:3 does not.

Widescreen displays follow the proportions derived from the ancient golden ratio or golden section. This proportion has been proven over time by endless mathematicians and researchers to be the most functional and most aesthetically pleasing. It's painful that Rafe omitted this fact.

Unless you use your computer strictly just to surf the web, write emails, and the odd Word document, ignore Rafe's article.

[heinriph]

I'm a big fan of the golden ratio - but it's an aesthetic rule. It's got little relevance for function.

Look, I agree there are plenty of uses for a wide display; but for plenty of others, it's not very useful. For many uses, having lots of vertical space is more important.

It would be nice if both types were widely available.

[nate011]

Is it just me or did the title change from "The myth of width: Why wide screens don't work" to "The myth of width: When wide screens don't work" since this morning?

[ldtiry]

I definitely prefer working on a wide screen. Most of this deals with the fact that I use my taskbar on the left side of the screen, so I can see more of the windows that I have open. In fact I use dual wide screens because on my other monitor I have my work chat client and my call center client on the right had side. This allows me to max the veritcal space allowed as well as have all my notifications show up without having any shrink up because of space.

[MrGadgetman]

I guess this can go both ways..., no pun intended. I purposely got a Dell 20" widscreen monitor that rotates. That way I have the best of both worlds. Portrait for websites and document applications, which drastically reduces the amount of scrolling needed. Widescreen (landscape) for games, video sites, video editing and everything else. It works so much better that way. Otherwise, I would be frustrated like this guy.

[hotbbq]

Um, no. Wide screen is better, period. I use Eclipse all day to do Java programming and the extra space on the sides allows ample room for code, debug, package exploring, and code outlines. You just can't do that elegantly on a square screen.

Two additional pieces of software that works really well in widescreen on my Mac are Mail with WideMail add on and Net NewsWire in widescreen mode. Both maximize the real estate and provide an excellent layout.

Kemp
kempmullaney.com

[Brian]

I need a wide-screen GPS because I need to see the intersections as they approach so I know the options I have when driving in unfamiliar territory.

[3wire]

So if you add monitors for additional real estate would you rather stack them on top of each other?

[paul613]

You mean, like this? Yes.
http://www.ergotron.com/Products/MultiMonitorMounts/tabid/159/ctl/Product/mid/545/PRDID/15/language/en-US/default.aspx

But to each his own: Ergotron's stands let users arrange multiple flat panels almost any which way:
http://www.ergotron.com/Products/MultiMonitorMounts/tabid/159/Default.aspx

[Sam Papelbon]

1:1 ratio will always provide the biggest area per length of side. the whole 'wider is better' thing was invented by people who wanted to sell tvs/monitors with a movie screen shape.

'changing from normal to wide screen will add so many inches to the side of your picture!' OR... you could get a 4:3 tv that is just as wide as the wide screen tv and have so many more inches above and below...

i swear in a few years, 'wide' will go out of style and people will advertise tall-screen tvs. 'with a wide screen tv, you miss all the details going on above and below the screen. SEE IT ALL WITH TALL!'

[FroZone]

its funny how the article is written as fact.

[Brian]

The video displays in Times Square are mostly vertical, some are curved and others wrap around corners in curves.

[thedementedboy]

this is by far the dumbest article i have read on cnet. seriously who really cares? has anybody noticed how cnet articles keep on getting dumber and dumber? this is seriously retarded and i catn believe i wasted a couple minutes of my life reading this crap. JESUS.

[atomicbomb156]

The whole article puts into words my complaints about screens. I do love watching videos and viewing pictures on my computer, but I often wish that I could rotate my screen so that it sits in portrait mode rather than landscape. I have the same thing with my Zune. If there was an option to rotate from landscape to portrait that would make working on text documents and reading text on a computer much easier. I know there are some monitors that swivel and mp3 players that allow you to switch between view modes, I would prefer that all viewable tech could have that option without having to hand over more money. My old cellphone that came out 4 years ago had that option to switch between portrait and landscape. WHY HAVEN'T OTHER COMPANIES CAUGHT ONTO THAT!?!?

[dominiklukes]

This all seems a result of optical illusion colored by linkbaiting crankiness. I don't remember having a square-screen laptop with more than 800 vertical resolution - exactly the same as my 16:9 laptop. I can imagine some people don't like more information on the side to distract them but, it's fairly easy to eliminate that so widescreen monitors probably make more sense as a mass market productivity device.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Aspect_Ratios_and_Resolutions.svg

But perhaps I'm missing something.

Of course, as so many, I often wish I had a portrait mode on my laptop - but the only solution is a tablet which of course brings too many other compromises.

[tomvw]

Well, I tend to agree that widescreen monitors are less productive for authors. But for just about anything else, like graphic design, spreadsheets and even gaming they're a drastic improvement over 4:3 displays.
I normally work on a 16:10 TFT, but sometimes I have to work on 4:3 CRT and the difference really shows, especially when using a sidebar for feeds or IM.

[donrisi]

My laptop is wide screen, but it's not so wide that it's unusable. Quite comfortable, as a matter of fact. My new desktop screen is another story.

When my old, square monitor died, I got a wide screen, and I really thought I'd love the wide screen style. For my graphics work (AutoCAD, Photoshop, etc.), the extra real estate is a God send. But when I surfed the web or worked on my word processor, I had issues. Then I discovered a couple of tricks.

I keep my browser, word processor, and several other windows sized to roughly square proportions, stuck in the middle of the screen, where they?re comfortable to work on. Fabulous. Even better, I now have room off to the right for my Google Desktop sidebar, full of gadgets that are always visible (except when I?m doing graphics work). Over on the left, I keep all my desktop icons (which I purposely keep to a minimum), constantly at the ready. Also over there is an auto-hiding second taskbar toolbar, for all those misc. things that I want access to, sometimes.

So I have what I think is an excellent compromise between the wide screen monitor and the easiest way to work. An added benefit is that the main taskbar at the bottom of the screen is now so big that I can put a whole lot more down there, with room left over.

[kevlan]

If you reconfigure all of your toolbars so that everything is on the side it uses that side space and then you can show more of a page at once and I think it is usually faster to mouse to something on the side than on top once you get used to it.

[Gorifyny]

I agree that this is an issue, but it is also clear that each user has his/her own preference. The serious problem will be if 3x4 displays disappear from the market. I sincerely hope not as I would like to have a choice.

Look how rough the enforced transition to 16x9 television is, with wasted space on either the sides or tops and bottom of your screen depending on the source (or the awful widescreen stretch.)

I think it is interesting that the most recent and highest-resolution film form - IMAX - is more of a 3x4 than 16x9 ratio.

As an aside - also see how hard it is to type ratio and not ration - I've had this problem repeatedly and I notice several posters also have fingers trained to go -ion.