as per the subject, which would people choose assuming they were the
same price and response time etc..? i need to choose a new LCD for
work, used for CAD/3D animation.

at home i use a 24" dell widescreen which is awesome, but i'm worried
20" 16:9 would be just too small... how much higher would a 20" 4:3 be
over 16:9...?

gimp wrote:

For a 16:10 (not 16:9) monitor:

width = .85 (diagonal)
height = .53 (diagonal)

So a 20" 16:10 monitor is 17" x 10.6". Compare this to a 20" 4:3
monitor, which is 16" x 12".

IMO, the 20" widescreen monitors are a bit small. If/when I go
widescreen, I'll probably jump to the 24" range.

gimp inquired: >

PC monitors tend to be 16:10 rather than 16:9 (HDTV).

A 16:10 display needs to be ~1.08x larger than a 4:3
display in order to have the same total pixels, or in the
case of a 20" 4:3 LCD, you'd need a 21.5" ws LCD.

A 16:10 display needs to be ~1.13x larger than a 4:3
display in order to have the same pixel height, or in the
case of a 20" 4:3 LCD, you'd need a 22.6" ws LCD.

So all else being equal (and it never is), if you can get
a 22.6" 4:3 for the same price as that 20W, go 4:3.

Figure out the pixels requirements of your critical app,
say 2-up 8.5x11 documents at 100 dpi (1700x1100), and
get whatever delivers that the most economically.

--
Regards, Bob Niland mailto:name (AT) ispname (DOT) tld
http://www.access-one.com/rjn email4rjn AT yahoo DOT com
NOT speaking for any employer, client or Internet Service Provider.

thanks for the feedback guys, i'm gonna do the hard sell for the boss to
get 20" 4:3 (they usually get 19" but i really need 1600x1200 res).
my own 24" dell is awesome but at $500 more expensive won't really be
justified for what is mostly 4:3 work.

gimp wrote:

Probably a good choice. The widescreen monitors look cool, and indeed
are very nice for those who will benefit greatly by having two apps
side-by-side on the screen. However, for many applications, the
taller 4:3 monitors make more sense.