Moose, my monitor argument makes perfect sense...and sure I could adjust the resolution so everything is tiny on the widescreen, flip the monitor 90 degrees etc etc, but that's just proving my point even more. Here, not sure if this is what Hang to Dry was trying to show but here is a very clear comparison....I took a screen shot of the same web page with a normal 4:3 monitor on my desktop, and a screenshot with my laptop...ratio of 16:9 . I hope everyone can understand which is which. Both are considered 17 inch monitors, and both, laptop held up to desktop monitor have close to the same size text and resolution etc. Pretty easy to see the one everyone who hasn't been fooled by the 'widescreen' is better phenomenon would pick. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Basic comparison, no need to complicate things. Nobody in their right mind would choose the bottom one, unless all they did was watch movies and tv on their pc....and I'm mostly talking from a overall useability standpoint, for business, photo editing, web pages etc. Looking at the comparison, you don't even see the "Poker Forum" section of threads on the wide screen...or 'short screen' as it should really be called. The 4:3 blows the 'short screen' away. And sure, the old we are wired to see left to right arguement is there, but it doesn't hold water either. All the short screen means is you are going to have to scroll down much more often, not be able to see an entire photo height or document on the page etc. Left to right has nothing to do with it. Being able to fit something vertically on a page without shrinking it down unnecessarily does though.
If that's all you could come up with moose, that is extremely weak.
I'm saying the text was the same size, and just to make utter sure, I put the laptop monitor beside the 4:3, and rest assured, it was just about exact. Is that really all you have? I'm not looking for an argument but geez, I proved my point beyond any shadow of a doubt to anyone who wasn't a completely brainwashed and your only comment has to do with my confirming of the text size? LOL.
If it makes you feel better moose...4:3 monitor set at =1280 pixels wide, 16:9 =1366 pixels wide....so yes, for these purposes virtually equal.
Yeah I do. I'm sorry your laptop sucks balls, maybe you should upgrade to something like my hi-def playbook.
Here is my 17" widescreen laptop. Note that I've included the screen res, which happens to be the WUXGA format of 1920x1200. It's really too bad you couldn't afford a laptop this nice.
Here is my Dell 4:3 20" monitor. Hey I should be able to see a lot more, 'cause it's more square like and it's also bigger too. Bigger is always better right? But no, the screen res is 1600x1200 which is the UXGA - note the 'W' is missing because, hey it's not widescreen - and here is the kick in the nuts - what? WTF? I can see just as much vertically as in the previous picture. Shocking really but it does happen to be exactly what I explained earlier but some people only read picture books so understandable really that the concept was not clear before.
Of course in the second pic I had to overlap more of the webpage, 'cuz u no, widescreen is a useless come on perpetrated on the unwashed public, so in my 4:3 pic, I had less space to show the screen rez. But u no all about screen rez now.
Of course Ned, what you conveniently left out was that 1366 is actually the horizontal resolution, which on a widescreen is actually 1366 x 768 VERTICALLY, whereas 1280 in a 4:3 format is actually 1280 x 960.
Sorry u don't no horizontal from vertical but horizontal is when u are sleeping and vertical is when u are walking, tho for u it may not be entirely vertical, maybe a little hunched over.
So doing the math (960-768)/768 = 0.25. Yup that's right, becuz of yer screen rez, the 4:3 is 25% larger vertically, (that's that the up and down way). So thanks for yer pics, cuz they also prove my point.
What u wanna do is drop your 4:3 screen down to 1024 x 768, then they will be the same vertically, but 'lo and behold!, u will have lots more room horizontally on your widescreen.
moose owns . . . even a techno phobe like me could figger out the whatzis and the thingamajig from those posts. But, whats wrong with walking with a bit of a hunch? Soon I will have a mighty hump to my spine . . . exxxxxxxxxxxxxcelllent.
Yeah I do. I'm sorry your laptop sucks balls, maybe you should upgrade to something like my hi-def playbook.
Here is my 17" widescreen laptop. Note that I've included the screen res, which happens to be the WUXGA format of 1920x1200. It's really too bad you couldn't afford a laptop this nice.
Here is my Dell 4:3 20" monitor. Hey I should be able to see a lot more, 'cause it's more square like and it's also bigger too. Bigger is always better right? But no, the screen res is 1600x1200 which is the UXGA - note the 'W' is missing because, hey it's not widescreen - and here is the kick in the nuts - what? WTF? I can see just as much vertically as in the previous picture. Shocking really but it does happen to be exactly what I explained earlier but some people only read picture books so understandable really that the concept was not clear before.
Of course in the second pic I had to overlap more of the webpage, 'cuz u no, widescreen is a useless come on perpetrated on the unwashed public, so in my 4:3 pic, I had less space to show the screen rez. But u no all about screen rez now.
LOL, really have to laugh at the 'you can't afford this' bit moose. Seriously. Yer very rich ok? I'm very poor. Fair enough? That month I just spent in Mexico was to work in fields just so I could hopefully upgrade to a computer like yours. Sadly I came up short. Maybe next year
But lets just look at what you posted. I said nothing about the measurements being verticle, and I have no idea why you are trying to overcomplicate things but thanks fer ur rez lessons. Post your screens....with both web pages filling both screens. Who cares that you can size them the same for two monitors that are different sizes. I posted two 17 inch monitors...both with identical web pages filling each screen. That web page in that 17 inch 'screen shot' of yours is tiny, in comparison to the 20 inch no matter what resolution you attempt to confuse people with. While the screen shots you posted are the same size, the actual size of each is no where near the same. Fill each screen with each web page....little or no black on the sides of each. That is the only comparison that matters. But since your comparing a 17 inch to a 20 inch and then posting screen shots of each that appear the same size, really no point in even doing that. My post stands. Attempt to confuse and overcomplicate at will
P.S.... moose...even with your two uncomparable monitors for screen shot purposes...by all means, reduce your very expensive laptops HORIZONTAL resolution to 1600 or thereabouts, like your 4:3 so they are at least remotely comparable (so the text etc actually looks the same size to the nake eye), before doing a screen shot. Then, to not add to the misleading atmosphere, make sure the screens are sized comparably to the actual screen sizes. Or don't...and just bask in your piles of money, brush your teeth with your gold toothbrush and turn in on your satin sheets :-\
Ned your monitor rant makes no sense. You get no more vertical space on a 22" widescreen than you do on a reg 22" screen, nor would you on a reg 40" screen for that matter, unless you change the resolution, the text would only be larger and easier to read. So your comments about being able to read a full webpage on a reg screen vs 'a short screen' are a bunch of crap.
That web page in that 17 inch 'screen shot' of yours is tiny, in comparison to the 20 inch no matter what resolution you attempt to confuse people with.
Uhh I already said that. Clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point.
You want to discuss what you can see vertically then the vertical resolution has to be the same. Why are you trying to compare the horizontal resolution to discuss vertical content? It's funny how I am attempting to confuse people with two screenshots of the same vertical resolution. If I had a 17" 4:3 monitor then the pics would look exactly the same but I don't don't so duh, as I said, the 20" screenshot will appear larger, hey amazing, the laws of physics apply - larger things, appear larger. That is incredible perception you have.
Regardless, the vertical content is exactly the same because the vertical resolution is the same.
You can 'hold' your monitors up to each other all you want and say they 'look' the same but if they are both 17" (but since you have them set to different resolutions I suspect they aren't) then they aren't really the same until you do this:
What u wanna do is drop your 4:3 screen down to 1024 x 768, then they will be the same vertically, but 'lo and behold!, u will have lots more room horizontally on your widescreen.
As I said, your rant on monitors is complete crap.
Moose, think of it this way. It's clear you don't agree with my line of thinking, and think I'm cheap and stupid. I can live with that and have no interest getting into a 'my laptop is better than yours' back and forth. I see laptops as disposable, and as such pay the bare minimum for them as the low end laptop these days gets me by just fine as they are always about 5x better than the ones two years before. I'm obviously not talking emachines low end, but mid range at best. Always been that way. But trust me, it has nothing to do with 'affordability'.
That aside... let's just take resolution right out of the picture for the most part. Pretend we are comparing 2 monitors one 4:3 and the other 16:9, both what would be considered 20 inches or whatever. Pretend that 4:3 monitors were still sold as an option to widescreen and that the resolution on each is the comparable. Of course the verticle resolution would be different, one monitor is shorter than the other. For arguments purpose, we'll say that each monitor is set at a horizontal resolution of 1600 (and vertical falls wherever it may based on that number). Or set the vertical the same, at whatever number you want as long as it's the same on both monitors. You do understand that's the way to get a 480x360 photo for example to appear the exact same size on each right?
We'll just use horizontal, because that's all we need. With both monitors at 1600....that's the ONLY way to get 'POKERFORUM.CA' at the top of this screen to appear exactly the same size on each (4 inches long, 6 inches long..whatever). That is what I'm trying to show....based on two monitors....to have the same size photo, document, graphic, whatever show up on each. That's the only viable way to compare the two. Of course I can increase resolution on the widescreen and fit more length on it....but that makes the photo, webpage, graph, whatever, visually smaller. I'm showing that based on wanting to have text etc at the exact same size on each, 4:3 is far superior for people who use graphs, documents, webpages, and just about everything else a computer is used for other than movies and gaming. Of course you can fit whatever on a widescreen, but to get as much height as the 4:3 the widescreen needs to be shrunk down considerably. And yes, the majority of things on computers are based on height, not width. Even looking at your own screenshots....the pokerforum webpage isn't exactly begging for more width....it's just blank space on either side and it's the length of the page that it is not able to show. With all things being equal, and everything but movies and gaming based on a scrolling up and down format widescreens are indeed...in my opinion...far inferior to the 4:3. Of course I don't game on my PC or watch movies, both are done on the TV. I mean, even try putting 4 pokerstars tables on two 17 inch or two 20 inch monitors (one 4:3 and one 16:9). Anyone trying to tell me they can fit 4 tables the same size (and I'm talking actual size to the naked eye....actual size of the cards...table etc in actual inches, resolution doesn't even enter the picture) on the 16:9 as the 4:3 they're feeding you a line of bull. Anyone with both can do the comparison...just get out the tape measure Now that's not to say you wouldn't have an easier time fitting six tables on the widescreen....but alas, no argument is perfect..lol.
Damn lucky I wasn't typing this rambling endless post on a tablet, I would have given up 5 minutes ago
And just to be clear, I should concede that on a monitor 20 inches plus, non of this is really an issue and space isn't really a problem and fitting things on the screen really isn't even an issue. I probably should have been more clear, and kept it to 17 inch, or even 13-15 inch etc, mainly laptops.
Comments
Widescreen >> 4:3
I'm saying the text was the same size, and just to make utter sure, I put the laptop monitor beside the 4:3, and rest assured, it was just about exact. Is that really all you have? I'm not looking for an argument but geez, I proved my point beyond any shadow of a doubt to anyone who wasn't a completely brainwashed and your only comment has to do with my confirming of the text size? LOL.
If it makes you feel better moose...4:3 monitor set at =1280 pixels wide, 16:9 =1366 pixels wide....so yes, for these purposes virtually equal.
Here is my 17" widescreen laptop. Note that I've included the screen res, which happens to be the WUXGA format of 1920x1200. It's really too bad you couldn't afford a laptop this nice.
Here is my Dell 4:3 20" monitor. Hey I should be able to see a lot more, 'cause it's more square like and it's also bigger too. Bigger is always better right? But no, the screen res is 1600x1200 which is the UXGA - note the 'W' is missing because, hey it's not widescreen - and here is the kick in the nuts - what? WTF? I can see just as much vertically as in the previous picture. Shocking really but it does happen to be exactly what I explained earlier but some people only read picture books so understandable really that the concept was not clear before.
Of course in the second pic I had to overlap more of the webpage, 'cuz u no, widescreen is a useless come on perpetrated on the unwashed public, so in my 4:3 pic, I had less space to show the screen rez. But u no all about screen rez now.
Sorry u don't no horizontal from vertical but horizontal is when u are sleeping and vertical is when u are walking, tho for u it may not be entirely vertical, maybe a little hunched over.
So doing the math (960-768)/768 = 0.25. Yup that's right, becuz of yer screen rez, the 4:3 is 25% larger vertically, (that's that the up and down way). So thanks for yer pics, cuz they also prove my point.
What u wanna do is drop your 4:3 screen down to 1024 x 768, then they will be the same vertically, but 'lo and behold!, u will have lots more room horizontally on your widescreen.
Rawhide Kid is ghey . . . literally. And Kristy is basically Wonder Woman with all the fetish gear out in the open.
LOL, really have to laugh at the 'you can't afford this' bit moose. Seriously. Yer very rich ok? I'm very poor. Fair enough? That month I just spent in Mexico was to work in fields just so I could hopefully upgrade to a computer like yours. Sadly I came up short. Maybe next year
But lets just look at what you posted. I said nothing about the measurements being verticle, and I have no idea why you are trying to overcomplicate things but thanks fer ur rez lessons. Post your screens....with both web pages filling both screens. Who cares that you can size them the same for two monitors that are different sizes. I posted two 17 inch monitors...both with identical web pages filling each screen. That web page in that 17 inch 'screen shot' of yours is tiny, in comparison to the 20 inch no matter what resolution you attempt to confuse people with. While the screen shots you posted are the same size, the actual size of each is no where near the same. Fill each screen with each web page....little or no black on the sides of each. That is the only comparison that matters. But since your comparing a 17 inch to a 20 inch and then posting screen shots of each that appear the same size, really no point in even doing that. My post stands. Attempt to confuse and overcomplicate at will
Now on a 4:3 monitor....you could fit a much bigger...bwahahahaha
Uhh I already said that. Clearly reading comprehension is not your strong point.
You want to discuss what you can see vertically then the vertical resolution has to be the same. Why are you trying to compare the horizontal resolution to discuss vertical content? It's funny how I am attempting to confuse people with two screenshots of the same vertical resolution. If I had a 17" 4:3 monitor then the pics would look exactly the same but I don't don't so duh, as I said, the 20" screenshot will appear larger, hey amazing, the laws of physics apply - larger things, appear larger. That is incredible perception you have.
Regardless, the vertical content is exactly the same because the vertical resolution is the same.
You can 'hold' your monitors up to each other all you want and say they 'look' the same but if they are both 17" (but since you have them set to different resolutions I suspect they aren't) then they aren't really the same until you do this:
As I said, your rant on monitors is complete crap.
Fuck me, this is ridiculous . . . and coming from me, that's saying something.
That aside... let's just take resolution right out of the picture for the most part. Pretend we are comparing 2 monitors one 4:3 and the other 16:9, both what would be considered 20 inches or whatever. Pretend that 4:3 monitors were still sold as an option to widescreen and that the resolution on each is the comparable. Of course the verticle resolution would be different, one monitor is shorter than the other. For arguments purpose, we'll say that each monitor is set at a horizontal resolution of 1600 (and vertical falls wherever it may based on that number). Or set the vertical the same, at whatever number you want as long as it's the same on both monitors. You do understand that's the way to get a 480x360 photo for example to appear the exact same size on each right?
We'll just use horizontal, because that's all we need. With both monitors at 1600....that's the ONLY way to get 'POKERFORUM.CA' at the top of this screen to appear exactly the same size on each (4 inches long, 6 inches long..whatever). That is what I'm trying to show....based on two monitors....to have the same size photo, document, graphic, whatever show up on each. That's the only viable way to compare the two. Of course I can increase resolution on the widescreen and fit more length on it....but that makes the photo, webpage, graph, whatever, visually smaller. I'm showing that based on wanting to have text etc at the exact same size on each, 4:3 is far superior for people who use graphs, documents, webpages, and just about everything else a computer is used for other than movies and gaming. Of course you can fit whatever on a widescreen, but to get as much height as the 4:3 the widescreen needs to be shrunk down considerably. And yes, the majority of things on computers are based on height, not width. Even looking at your own screenshots....the pokerforum webpage isn't exactly begging for more width....it's just blank space on either side and it's the length of the page that it is not able to show. With all things being equal, and everything but movies and gaming based on a scrolling up and down format widescreens are indeed...in my opinion...far inferior to the 4:3. Of course I don't game on my PC or watch movies, both are done on the TV. I mean, even try putting 4 pokerstars tables on two 17 inch or two 20 inch monitors (one 4:3 and one 16:9). Anyone trying to tell me they can fit 4 tables the same size (and I'm talking actual size to the naked eye....actual size of the cards...table etc in actual inches, resolution doesn't even enter the picture) on the 16:9 as the 4:3 they're feeding you a line of bull. Anyone with both can do the comparison...just get out the tape measure
Damn lucky I wasn't typing this rambling endless post on a tablet, I would have given up 5 minutes ago
but it looks like you've both gone to bed..
Freudian reveal to true thread intentions.
/thread
Mark
LOL...I figured someone would comment on that in one way or another :biggrin:
Night all.
no, but I found a baby with an Ozzy book who is a captive and a little drool
Thanks for the effort! Love the kids BS t-shirt