Could You Survive With A 5:4 Monitor?
A common misconception these days is that any monitor that doesn’t have a wide aspect isn’t worth using. I disagree with this because in many instances it’s the better choice for a lot of people.
The aspect of a non-widescreen monitor is 5:4 and not 4:3 as widely believed. If you have a DVD of a television show, pop it in your computer and play with VLC. You’ll notice at 4:3 it does not take up the whole screen and thin black bars will be present at top and bottom – but if you set VLC to a 5:4 aspect, the entire screen gets used. 5:4 is in fact very “close” aspect-wise to 4:3, but 4:3 is and always was a TV aspect ratio first.
The two most popular sizes of 5:4 monitors are 17 and 19-inch. The native resolution on both is usually 1280×1024.
Disadvantages of using a 5:4 display
There are there major disadvantages of using a 5:4.
1. Playback of movies results in a very small picture
You get huge black bars top and bottom on DVD movie playback with a 5:4 monitor. Sure, you can adjust/zoom/etc., but no matter how you set it, comfortable viewing will always result in those bars being present.
2. Difficult to use two application windows in the same space and have both completely in view
You run out of horizontal space real quick on a 5:4. For example, if you have a browser window open at 1024×768, that only leaves you with 256 pixels left for something else. Other than a widget or instant messenger, there’s not much you could fit there.
3. Modern games require widescreen
Okay, I should say that modern games don’t require it, but if you want to immerse yourself in the full gaming experience, wide is necessary.
Advantages of using a 5:4 display
If you don’t play DVDs, don’t game and typically don’t have more than a single application window in view, 5:4 is a great choice. Here are three reasons why.
1. If you’re going to use a resolution of 1024×768 anyway, go with 5:4
The most popular resolution used on the internet is 1024×768. In fact, it’s used so much it blows away any other resolution currently in use. Check out the worldwide stats from the last 12 months. 1024×768 has a huge lead over everything else.
Setting a widescreen monitor to use 1024×768 resolution makes everything looking “fat”. Some people can deal with this, but it personally drives me up a wall. If you want the absolute best readability using a monitor that displays 1024×768 properly, use a 5:4.
It is true you can set a widescreen to slow black bars on the sides when using a non-wide resolution, but why bother doing that when you can just use a 5:4 that takes up the whole display at 1024 properly?
2. Older games look best on a 5:4
Whether using authentic retro games or reissued retro (such as through Steam), the only way to play these the right way is to use the real-deal 5:4 aspect.
Older games on wide monitors look absolutely awful. Example: Starcraft. It runs in only one res, 640×480 – in full screen. That’s it. If your video control software doesn’t allow you the black bars when playing standard aspect games on a wide display, you will absolutely hate it.
If you’re a gamer that dabbles between retro and modern, it’s definitely a good idea to have a 5:4 monitor as secondary display.
3. Single-tasker? 5:4 is what you want.
Some folks out there use applications in only one way – maximized. I personally don’t do this but there are scores of folks who not only use one app at a time but in Windows hide the taskbar as well. When that one program is open, it has their full attention.
The 5:4 aspect suits single-tasker types of computer users best, no question.
Side note: Don’t ever try to convince a single-tasker to compute any other way. You will fail. These are people who are duly convinced Windows is not a multi-task environment, even though “Windows” by its very title means “multiple” because it’s plural. Otherwise it would be “Window”. Yes, there are plenty of people who have absolutely no clue that Windows can run more than one thing at a time. Heaven forbid you actually showed them how to use ALT+TAB; their heads would probably explode.
How To Enable A Cache Size Limit In Google Chrome
Read Next
11 thoughts on “Could You Survive With A 5:4 Monitor?”
I better run off now before they send me faxes about how annoyed they are that Sony is no longer making Beta tapes.
Although widescreens have become the norm for new monitors, not everyone spends thousands of dollars for a computer system to play games on. My computer is a tool, not a toy, and I already have a big screen for movies.
Widescreens may suit gamers, but when it comes to eye strain, commonplace 1920×1200(24″) or 1600×1200(20″) are a very poor choice. Yes you can increase the monitors viewing size 110-115% to equal a 19 inch 5:4 aspect ratio text size, but in leaving a monitors ‘Native’ resolution, text and image clarity goes out the window. Blurry text and images quickly causes eye strain and head aches.
Currently I’ve just upgraded from quad 19’s to 24 inch. Beautiful monitors. Clean, crisp and gorgeous colors at 1920×1200 native resolution, but the only way to make them useable for text, spreadsheets and office demands, is to increase the screen view to 110 percent and in doing so, there goes the clarity and sharp text. Reluctantly I’ll be sending them back. (May2015)
Beyond the office, in the warehouse or in a Medical office, the application packages are by default FullScreen apps becuase the user in those settings is a Single Purpose User. The Nurse is ONLY supposed to be access Medical Data– not browsing Youtube. The Warehouse guy is ONLY looking at Storage Inventory, PERIOD. Under these circumstances, Widescreen is superfluous.
PS– if you buy your equipment through a Business supplier like CDW, you can STILL get 5:4 aspect flatscreen for relatively comparable prices to similar aspect widescreens, but I found I have to ASK my sales rep for them. They don’t tend to be listed for customer web search anymore. My office is mounting an EMR, but the app was designed only for FullScreen on 5:4. Stretching it over a widescreen made it ‘un-navigable’. due to font resizing and increased resolution needed to see the entire app interface.
Last– 5:4 is easier on my worker’s eyes. Only teenagers and gamers truly like insanely high resolutions. The rest of us Workers get headaches and eye fatigue.
That all started with old-as-dirt mainframe terminals which only did one thing as a time per user session. In modern times, if you’re connected to an AS/400 mainframe, it’s meant to be full-screen using a very specific aspect, in this case 4:3 or the close equivalent 5:4. Modern mainframe terminal emulation programs like the Reflection client by Attachmate still work best as a full-screen 4:3/5:4.
Aside from that however, older users in the office-place simply cannot fathom the fact that Windows is a multi-task environment because as far as they’re concerned, the thought is “If it’s not visible, it must be closed and I will have to re-open it again.”
It is very, *very* difficult to teach older users that Windows can do more than one thing at a time. You know that if a program is minimized to the taskbar, it’s running. Older users simply do not understand that at all. Again, “if it’s not in view it must be closed.” Very, very tough thing to teach.
It makes it even more difficult that many business apps are designed for users that work like that.
Why? All of the non video, non gaming world works vertically. Be that documents, lines of code, spreadsheets, database records, etc. Sure, with is a factor, but height is more important. On a comparable widescreen, you lose height. You end up having to get a bigger monitor to compensate.
“…in fact every other non widescreen ratio is 4:3” is false; they are 5:4.
If you want to get really technical about it, here’s how it pans out:
VGA (standard, 640×480): 4:3
WXGA (wide, 1280×720/1280×800/1440×900): 16:9 or 16:10
SXGA (“Super XGA”, standard, 1280×1024): 5:4 <- This is what standalone standard aspect LCD monitors use and is still de facto standard.
SXGA+: (standard, 1400×1050): 4:3 <- This is only seen on smaller 14-inch and 15-inch laptop screens and not standalone desktop monitors.
The next true 4:3 from there is UXGA, seen normally as a 1600×1200 20-inch monitor; it is not offered in any physical size smaller than that, meaning it's not in 17 or 19-inch territory. The UXGA is also ridiculously expensive starting at around $400.
17's and 19's are SXGA, not SVGA+ and not UXGA, therefore they have a ratio of 5:4.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg
To say 5:4 lends itself to businesses better because of the user is false. That’s like saying chalk boards better lends itself to education instead of dry erase boards because that’s what the teachers are used to.
Also, 17 and 19 inch my be the most popular now but it’s not the only, in fact every other non widescreen ratio is 4:3. So it’s wrong to say non widescreen is only 5:4.