kaled
msg:3744315 | 7:51 pm on Sep 13, 2008 (gmt 0) |
| I design my sites with fixed width (ducks to avoid flak). |
|
In that case, if the screen is wide enough (in pixels) it doesn't matter which you buy. With regard to previewing, it's fine to use a WYSIWYG editor like Dreamweaver, but you should always preview/test with Mozilla first, then IE and maybe Opera as a final check. A 19" 1280*1024 monitor is easy to work with. A 19" widescreen will be better for entertainment. So, unless you plan to use it to watch films or play games, I would avoid the widescreen (but you won't be able to do so for much longer). Kaled.
|
nickreynolds
msg:3744363 | 9:36 pm on Sep 13, 2008 (gmt 0) |
Hmmm - just been looking at my favourite pc supplies website - it seems that most of their monitors are widescreen - will 4:3 be redundant soon?
|
dcheney
msg:3744441 | 2:16 am on Sep 14, 2008 (gmt 0) |
I'm running two 22" widescreen side-by-side (1680x1050 each). Once you've gone wide, you won't go back.
|
kaled
msg:3744446 | 2:29 am on Sep 14, 2008 (gmt 0) |
It seems to me that 4:3 stocks are being run down. A 22" 1680*1050 monitor has a similar pixel size to a 19" 1280*1024 so that would be my second choice (but the pixels are slightly smaller). Given that you are using a 15" monitor right now, I'm guessing that you have an oldish graphics card too. If it does not support the resolution of the monitor, you'll need a new card. Kaled.
|
StoutFiles
msg:3744490 | 5:37 am on Sep 14, 2008 (gmt 0) |
I've got a 24" widescreen running 1920x1200. It takes a while to get used to so much space but you adjust. However, a 19" will work just fine. I go back to my small laptop screen and have no complaints in doing so...I actually prefer to website build with the smaller screen and surf the web with the big desktop screen.
|
|
