It's official: Widescreen monitors suck

[El Greco]

I've waited several years before I made it official, but now I can say it beyond any doubt: Widescreen monitors suck big time sucking suckage for most PC uses. They are good for watching movies and playing some PC games, but you could also do those on your TV. Your computer monitor should be 4:3. Period. For the last years I've been using two 16:9 monitors and one 4:3, and the latter aspect ratio is better in every way. It's a shame that now there's a very limited selection of new 4:3 LCDs.

There, I said it.

[Sam.I.Am]

Well you can send me your old 16:9 monitors because clearly you don't need them anymore...

[El Greco]

Certainly. Just deposit in my Paypal account $450 for shipping costs and they are yours.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Not only do I still prefer 4:3, I still prefer the look of a good CRT.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I like the wider ratio monitors. I turn them 90 degrees and use them for reading and writing.

[megaresp]

...Widescreen monitors suck big time...for most PC uses...

Old fogey. I bet candy bars used to taste better too :p

[OnlyTellsTruths]

Old fogey. I bet candy bars used to taste better too :p

Off topic, but I can't resist. That is so true, especially for the ones with peanuts. They used to all have higher quality peanuts.

[Fishstick]

Well your arguments are solid, at least.

[merentha]

The extra real estate on widescreens are excellent for working on spreadsheets and powerpoint charts. I can't go back to 4:3.

[erlando]

My main beef with 16:9 is that the monitor is too short. I code for a living so I tend to want to see as much code as possible. That means that I need the vertical room to be as large as possible. At the same time I want to be able to have several windows open side by side, so just turning the screen 90 degrees doesn't cut it.

In this regard 1920x1080 (16:9) sucks. Look for a 16:10 (1920x1200). Then you have the benefits of a typical 4:3 monitor (1600x1200) with added screen real estate.

Add a second (and third..) monitor and you have the optimum coding setup.

[The Dark Lord]

False.

[welshdean]

I like the wider ratio monitors. I turn them 90 degrees and use them for reading and writing.

:confused:
I turned mine 90o now all I can see is the 2" wide side of the screen. And it takes up much more space, it's now about 24" deep.

[The Dark Lord]

The highest common resolution for 4:3 monitors is/was probably 1600x1200. But you can get 1920x1200 monitor and have the screen 20% wider but just as tall. I fail to see any advantage for 4:3.

[JJM 777]

My main beef with 16:9 is that the monitor is too short. I code for a living so I tend to want to see as much code as possible. That means that I need the vertical room to be as large as possible.
Hmmm.

In our company, coders are those who absolutely require a wide screen. Because blackscreen Linux does not split lines, it simply shows only as much of the line as fits on the screen.

[Captain_Swoop]

For browsing I like a 4:3 Monitor, you can see more of the page.
I use a 19" 4:3. I don't watch movies on my PC so I don't see any benefit from a wide screen.

[Ratatoskr]

The highest common resolution for 4:3 monitors is/was probably 1600x1200. But you can get 1920x1200 monitor and have the screen 20% wider but just as tall. I fail to see any advantage for 4:3.

That's the problem, a 1920x1200 monitor is 16:10, not 16:9. And the 16:10 screens are rare and more expensive than the "regular" widescreen 16:9 screens.

So as long as I can't find a decent 24" 16:10 1920x1200 screen I'm sticking with my 20" 1600x1200..

[a_unique_person]

For work I use two monitors, a widescreen in normal horizontal, and a widescreen rotated 90 degrees. Most good video cards these days support dual (or more) monitors. I can read PDFs and word documents comfortably, and websites, code, video, etc. I hate it at home when I only have a single horizontal widescreen to read documents. Widescreen is good when you get two of them.

[The Dark Lord]

That's the problem, a 1920x1200 monitor is 16:10, not 16:9. And the 16:10 screens are rare and more expensive than the "regular" widescreen 16:9 screens.

So as long as I can't find a decent 24" 16:10 1920x1200 screen I'm sticking with my 20" 1600x1200..

You can get them for less than $300. Yeah, a similar sized 1920x1080 will be cheaper but it may be worth it if you care about 120 vertical pixels.

Anyway, a 4:3 monitor is certainly not ideal. It offers no advantages over 16:10. You could argue that it has advantages over 16:9 although I think the extra width more than compensates.

[erlando]

Hmmm.

In our company, coders are those who absolutely require a wide screen. Because blackscreen Linux does not split lines, it simply shows only as much of the line as fits on the screen.

Aaah, but my editors support word wrap .. ;-)

[Ernie M]

I've used a home setup comprised of a 24" iMac with a second 24" monitor. Both have the same ratio 16:10 size and resolution.

Advantages:
Both the 24" iMac and 24" monitor are 16:10 ratio at 1920 x 1200 resolution so you can drag same-sized items from one screen to the other without having to re-size.
If it's important to see the layout of a whole-page, 8.5" x 11" document without having to scroll, the 24" 16:10 aspect ratio gives you the ability to view word processing documents at full size. And, there's room on a 24" 1920 x 1200 widescreen to view not one, but two, 8.5" x 11" documents side-by-side.
With a widescreen, 24" 16:10 ratio, 1920 x 1200, you can watch 1920 x 1080 high definition TV on your computer while having the (Macintosh) Dock visible at the bottom of the screen. So you have visible access to items you have in your Dock. And you can use the second widescreen monitor to browse the Internet while you watch the news, in case you want to research a topic currently mentioned. And, there's enough room to have a word processing document open while viewing a webpage so you can make notes while watching TV.


So for how I use a computer and extra monitor, I see the benefits of a 16:10 aspect ratio, and using same-size widescreen format, making sure the monitor is at least 24" to be able to view an entire 8.5" x 11" document without having to scroll.

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

My monitor has 2560 x 1600 pixels. So that's 16:10. It's a thing of beauty.

~~ Paul

[bigred]

Nice to know I'm not the only one who hates them. Rarely play games and have no interest to watch TV/movies on a freaking PC so widescreen thing is totally lost on me. I esp hate how small most really are but advertised the same as the old "square" ones and people don't seem to get it. "22 monitor" is really more like a 15" monitor stretched out a bit. I desperately miss my old 19" "real" monitor.

[Fishstick]

3200x1600 is my current favourite. One day, money provided, it'll be 3200x3200

[Beerina]

My main beef with 16:9 is that the monitor is too short. I code for a living so I tend to want to see as much code as possible. That means that I need the vertical room to be as large as possible. At the same time I want to be able to have several windows open side by side, so just turning the screen 90 degrees doesn't cut it.

In this regard 1920x1080 (16:9) sucks. Look for a 16:10 (1920x1200). Then you have the benefits of a typical 4:3 monitor (1600x1200) with added screen real estate.

Add a second (and third..) monitor and you have the optimum coding setup.

I bought a 1920x1200, and the salesman several years ago said it was basically the last one. Since the TV standard of 1900x1080 was becoming popular, that was the max they were devoting all their resources to.

You can still get bigger ones, but they're rarer and more costly, not being produced by the billions.


Eh, my next step will be a big 3D system (computer, I mean) with 6 1920x1080 monitors, 3 on top of 3. Yes, this is now available for almost 2 years.

[Childlike Empress]

It's a shame that now there's a very limited selection of new 4:3 LCDs.


I'm with you. I needed one a good year ago and it was absurd to stand in the big media shops with lines and lines of monitors and get the answer "we have none" to the question where the non-widescreens are. I finally got one which is even 5:4 at a small computer store. Very pleased with it.

[El Greco]

And now I present you the future: The Philips Cinema 21:9 (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisions/cinema-219-platinum-series-147-cm-58-inch-ultra-wide-full-hd-3d-max-58pfl9956t_12/prd/). It's only the first step on our way to 90:9.

[ceptimus]

They measure screens on the diagonal, so the widescreen units give you less screen area per inch!

For example (and I know that 42-inch is more applicable to TVs than PCs, but the principle is the same):

A 42 inch screen with the old format 4:3 ratio has an area of 846.72 square inches.
A 42 inch screen with the widescreen 16:9 ratio has an area of 753.76 square inches.

[Morrigan]

This thread is full of crazy talk. I <3 my 24" Samsung and will never, ever go back to those 19" CRT stone age abominations.

/coder
/but not really a PC gamer

[Bram Kaandorp]

They measure screens on the diagonal, so the widescreen units give you less screen area per inch!

For example (and I know that 42-inch is more applicable to TVs than PCs, but the principle is the same):

A 42 inch screen with the old format 4:3 ratio has an area of 846.72 square inches.
A 42 inch screen with the widescreen 16:9 ratio has an area of 753.76 square inches.

That has bothered me as well.

Not that I blame them, but why couldn't they go for width or height? Or am I weird in wanting to know how wide a TV is, so that I know if it will fit in my room? The way it's now, I have to calculate how wide a 26" screen is (not a big hassle, but a hassle nonetheless).

[erlando]

You can still get 4:3 monitors. Dell have two in their catalog: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687&~ck=baynoteSearch&baynote_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0

ETA: Of course in my book you'd be better off buying a 16:10. It would be cheaper too.

[bigred]

You can still get 4:3 monitors. Dell have two in their catalog: http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687&~ck=baynoteSearch&baynote_bnrank=0&baynote_irrank=0

ETA: Of course in my book you'd be better off buying a 16:10. It would be cheaper too.
Then why are these so hideously freaking expensive? Doesn't supply and demand apply any more?? :boggled:

Apparently there are tons of people watching movies on their PCs nowdays. I've no idea why. Then again I've no idea why people would want to browse the internet on a 2, 3" iWhatever either. Guess I'm just a dinosaur.

[Stout]

Apparently there are tons of people watching movies on their PCs nowdays. I've no idea why. Then again I've no idea why people would want to browse the internet on a 2, 3" iWhatever either. Guess I'm just a dinosaur.

It's not so bad really, I figured I'd hate it but because I'm on vacation in a third world country with no TV I've been borrowing DVDs, sitting on the couch, loading them into my laptop which sits on a chair beside me, put on some headphones to get some decent sound and I'm away.

It doesn't suck as bad as I thought it would.

I'll abandon this format when I get home though, gimme big TV and good sound any day.

I am, quite possibly, one of the last people on the planet without a smart phone, or a cellphone for that matter. Dammit $80/month, $960/year, I have better things to spend my cash on.

Dinosaur roar

[JWideman]

They measure screens on the diagonal, so the widescreen units give you less screen area per inch!

For example (and I know that 42-inch is more applicable to TVs than PCs, but the principle is the same):

A 42 inch screen with the old format 4:3 ratio has an area of 846.72 square inches.
A 42 inch screen with the widescreen 16:9 ratio has an area of 753.76 square inches.

No. A 42 inch widescreen is 42 inches wide. Only CRTs are measured on the diagonal.

[NewtonTrino]

Our standard setup is two 24" widescreens running 1920x1080.

I don't mind that but I prefer having on monitor so I was a 30" apple cinema display. Utterly gorgeous picture and plenty of space to code or whatever. Highly recommended.

[Beanbag]

I have a pair of 24" 1920x1080 LCD monitors on my "monster" video editing machine. I've editied video on a single 4:3 monitor: I can still do it, but you'd have to hold a gun to my head to make me do it. I fill EVERY farging square inch on both monitors with different panels and use them all.

I couldn't function nearly as efficiently with one -- or even two -- 4:3 monitors. I physically NEED that much real estate, especially when doing intricate mattes and compositions.

I've "graduated" to dual-monitor systems, with the exception of my notebook and netbook. I'm typing on my "old" system with two 1280x1024 LCD monitors right now. It's nice to have several open windows spread across both monitors, particularly when I'm cutting and pasting material from different sources.

There's a place for 4:3. Enjoy it. And while you're at it, remember to hitch up your polyester pants up to your armpits and stand in the front yard, shaking your finger as speeders. :D

Beanbag

[fuelair]

Off topic, but I can't resist. That is so true, especially for the ones with peanuts. They used to all have higher quality peanuts.

And real sugar, and...I really mean that!!! For those who question that, you might want to compare a 1950s cookbook with a 2000 - hell a 1985 + cookbook for a large sampling of changes in even things as simple as veggies just based on the coolking methods.

Note you can still get or make foods just as good as then as long as you are careful what you use and how you use it - and places that remember that seem to do well on Diners,Dives etc. as well as in the rest of the business.

Unfortunately, machine foods do just fine also for the many whose taste buds have atrophied or never really developed - I can make a McDonald's burger taste almost as good as they did in the 60s, but I shouldn't have to (which reminds me that for a few weeks in 2010 a Hardee"s near us was putting out perfect old style McDonald's burgers (I do not think on purpose, but they were indistinguishable from the O.T. McD's) Unfortunately, no longer.

[Beanbag]

And now I present you the future: The Philips Cinema 21:9 (http://www.philips.co.uk/c/televisions/cinema-219-platinum-series-147-cm-58-inch-ultra-wide-full-hd-3d-max-58pfl9956t_12/prd/). It's only the first step on our way to 90:9.
I think I just left a puddle on the floor. I'd gladly upgrade to an 8-core processor with dual graphics cards just to run a pair of these for editing.

Beanbag

[fuelair]

:confused:
I turned mine 90o now all I can see is the 2" wide side of the screen. And it takes up much more space, it's now about 24" deep.

Troublemaker:D:D:D:D!!!

[Beanbag]

My monitor has 2560 x 1600 pixels. So that's 16:10. It's a thing of beauty.

~~ Paul
WHERE do you find these monstrosities? I'm assuming they have to be ordered, as I've NEVER seen one in the usual monitor sales places locally.

Beanbag

[Ray Brady]

You people are still using monitors? How quaint.

[Nosi]

Well you can send me your old 16:9 monitors because clearly you don't need them anymore...

*waves hands over head* Send one over here too!

[OnlyTellsTruths]

No. A 42 inch widescreen is 42 inches wide. Only CRTs are measured on the diagonal.

Is that how they do it with monitors or something? Because I'm pretty sure TVs are still measured on the diagonal.

[Corsair 115]

Off topic, but I can't resist. That is so true, especially for the ones with peanuts. They used to all have higher quality peanuts.


Ugh, please don't mention peanuts. The recent skyrocketing in the price of peanut butter is still jangling my nerves and pocketbook.

[a_unique_person]

I've "graduated" to dual-monitor systems, with the exception of my notebook and netbook. I'm typing on my "old" system with two 1280x1024 LCD monitors right now. It's nice to have several open windows spread across both monitors, particularly when I'm cutting and pasting material from different sources.

Beanbag

Yes, Dual Monitors, one rotated 90 degrees. Perfect for PDFs and other documents. Couldn't do without it.

[ceptimus]

No. A 42 inch widescreen is 42 inches wide. Only CRTs are measured on the diagonal.

Have you actually measured your screens? I just measured three of mine: a 42-inch TV, a 20-inch monitor (4:3) and a 15.6 inch laptop (16:9). All LCD. Each one the diagonal measurement is the one that corresponds with the nominal number.

Maybe it's different in your country. :con2:

[Captain_Snort]

When I worked in touch screens, we always worked on the diagonal for the sensors and screens, the spherical as well when dealing with CRTs

[Soapy Sam]

My computer wifis the image straight onto my glasses.

Going for a pee can be messy of course.

[DallasDad]

I currently use three monitors. Left @ 1920x1200 (26"), center @ 2560x1600 (30"), right @ 1920x1200 (26"). All run at 16:10. My primary activity is coding. I typically use the left monitor for the IDE, the center for output/testing, and the right one for lookups/documentation/Skype/email/etc.

I would love to have another 30" for the left side, since the more lines of code I can see at once, the better.

[BenBurch]

I just make the text small and exploit my myopia... ;)

[gumboot]

I personally much prefer widescreen.

[Almo]

I only like a widescreen monitor if the OS/Driver/Monitor in some way supports forcing proper aspect ratio for 4:3 games. Aiming with a squished picture in Quake 3 or Moonbase Commander is difficult. A guy who played his quake stretched for years and said it was fine, finally changed to have the correct aspect ratio. His rail accuracy went up noticably within a week or two.

[PixyMisa]

WHERE do you find these monstrosities? I'm assuming they have to be ordered, as I've NEVER seen one in the usual monitor sales places locally.

I have a 2560x1440 Dell (not as nice as the 2560x1600, but half the price).

Apple's 27" monitors and the 27" iMac are 2560x1440 as well.

[John Albert]

I rather like widescreen monitors. Having 2 of them side by side is especially nice.

[Bram Kaandorp]

I rather like widescreen monitors. Having 2 of them side by side is especially nice.

Especially when they're tilted 90 degrees.

Not that I have that, but it would be nice. Sort of like having an extremely large interactive book in front of you.

[quadraginta]

Is that how they do it with monitors or something? Because I'm pretty sure TVs are still measured on the diagonal.


They were the last time I went shopping for a TV.

Which was last weekend.

[ponderingturtle]

I wish I had a widescreen monitor at work. I have to make do with an old 24" CRT, but having the width would be nice for putting tool bars on the side and leave me a reasonable working area. The only dual monitors I have used were a TV next to a computer.

[Steve]

My computer wifis the image straight onto my glasses.

Going for a pee can be messy of course.

You pee on your glasses?

[Ocelot]

The extra real estate on widescreens are excellent for working on spreadsheets and powerpoint charts. I can't go back to 4:3.

I was just about to write the statement below.

No. There is no extra real estate on a widescreen monitor. This is a myth.
Compare the prices of otherwise similarly specced monitors and you find that any gain in width is more than offset by loss in height. In many cases I've seen you could almost make a saving by buying a larger 4:3 monitor and simply not using the top and bottom.

This was my finding three years ago when I sourced replacement monitors for my entire office. But I just fact checked. I repeated the calculation and like for like what I'm seeing now is that in terms of price per square inch of screen area, buying widescreen is about a third cheaper.

It's probably perverse of me to highlight my own mistake about this issue when I could just keep silent. Yet I really enjoy it when I quality control my knowledge banks and purge some wrongness. I've done good here today folks and I wanted to share.

[John Albert]

↑
Nominated.

Thank you Ocelot, for demonstrating what skepticism is all about!

[Wudang]

Opened one family size can of applause for Ocelot.

[maggot9779]

Once you go 16:10 you never go back.

[William Parcher]

I recently replaced my 17" CRT for a 21.5" widescreen (1080) LED monitor. I like pretty much everything about it except for my mouse action. I now have to move the cursor across a much bigger field and the cursor is slow (even set at fastest). I have to swing my wrist and whole forearm a lot and it's annoying.

I did some reading and found that my old and beloved Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical Wired Mouse has a pretty low "400 dpi" rating and doesn't move very briskly across big screens. I guess I'll need to research a replacement with faster action but I'm fussy and like the 5 programmable buttons on my oldie.

[gumboot]

I just connected my 32" 16:9 TV into my computer as a second monitor. So, so awesome. And Windows 7 appears to have no issues setting a separate resolution and aspect ratio for the two monitors, which is nice (although the actual desktop image appears to get a bit funky, and pasting screen grabs into Photoshop is a little weird now.

[gumboot]

I recently replaced my 17" CRT for a 21.5" widescreen (1080) LED monitor. I like pretty much everything about it except for my mouse action. I now have to move the cursor across a much bigger field and the cursor is slow (even set at fastest). I have to swing my wrist and whole forearm a lot and it's annoying.

I did some reading and found that my old and beloved Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical Wired Mouse has a pretty low "400 dpi" rating and doesn't move very briskly across big screens. I guess I'll need to research a replacement with faster action but I'm fussy and like the 5 programmable buttons on my oldie.


I have a logitech with a tonne of programmable buttons and it's nice and snappy. I don't have it remotely near its most sensitive, and yet I can easily cover any part of a 1680x1050 display without moving the mouse more than 3/4 of an inch in any direction (which is particularly hilarious given my mouspad is about the size of A3 paper!).

[quadraginta]

I have a logitech with a tonne of programmable buttons and it's nice and snappy. I don't have it remotely near its most sensitive, and yet I can easily cover any part of a 1680x1050 display without moving the mouse more than 3/4 of an inch in any direction (which is particularly hilarious given my mouspad is about the size of A3 paper!).


As usual, I will brag about my Trackman. I don't have to move it anywhere at all, and a tiny flick of my thumb will send the cursor from one side to the other of just about any monitor. That's without having the hysteresis cranked up.

Once you get used to a good trackball it's really hard to go back to an old-fashioned mouse.

[Francesca R]

I have 4 x 19 inch 4:3 monitors in a "wrap-around" configuration.

[rjh01]

I just connected my 32" 16:9 TV into my computer as a second monitor. So, so awesome. And Windows 7 appears to have no issues setting a separate resolution and aspect ratio for the two monitors, which is nice (although the actual desktop image appears to get a bit funky, and pasting screen grabs into Photoshop is a little weird now.

Are they clones? If so try watching TV or a YouTube video on your computer and see what happens on your TV. If they are not clones you should not have any problems.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

I recently replaced my 17" CRT for a 21.5" widescreen (1080) LED monitor. I like pretty much everything about it except for my mouse action. I now have to move the cursor across a much bigger field and the cursor is slow (even set at fastest). I have to swing my wrist and whole forearm a lot and it's annoying.

I did some reading and found that my old and beloved Microsoft IntelliMouse Optical Wired Mouse has a pretty low "400 dpi" rating and doesn't move very briskly across big screens. I guess I'll need to research a replacement with faster action but I'm fussy and like the 5 programmable buttons on my oldie.

I assume you are using Windows?

The mouse sensitivity slider in control panel can technically be set to much higher. You just have to set it manually in the registry. A quick google should show you how, it's easy. If you can't find it, just ask.

[William Parcher]

I assume you are using Windows?

The mouse sensitivity slider in control panel can technically be set to much higher. You just have to set it manually in the registry. A quick google should show you how, it's easy. If you can't find it, just ask.

Thanks. Yes, it's Windows 7.

I did Google my problem a few days ago and found many discussions of the same problem. I read about three threads all giving the same instructions about going into the registry and changing the number(s). But each thread also had responses saying that it doesn't work. After reading those threads where nobody said "great thanks, that did it", I just didn't even try.

[gumboot]

Are they clones? If so try watching TV or a YouTube video on your computer and see what happens on your TV. If they are not clones you should not have any problems.


No it's an extended desktop. I don't really see the point of cloning, unless it's for a presentation where the audience can't see your monitor or something.

[Christian Klippel]

Thanks. Yes, it's Windows 7.

I did Google my problem a few days ago and found many discussions of the same problem. I read about three threads all giving the same instructions about going into the registry and changing the number(s). But each thread also had responses saying that it doesn't work. After reading those threads where nobody said "great thanks, that did it", I just didn't even try.

Not sure which options Win7 (or any other "recent" Windows) has for the mouse settings. Usually there should be two parameters. One is "sensitivity", the other is "acceleration".

The sensitivity just sets a basic ratio between distance moved with the mouse vs. distance moved by the pointer, if the mouse is moved with a certain speed. The acceleration parameter dynamically changes that. So, for example, you move one inch with the mouse at a speed up to x, the pointer moves 400 pixels on the screen. If you now increase the speed of the mouse movement, the pointer would then move, lets say, 600 pixels on screen for the same inch traveled by the mouse.

I'm pretty sure that Windows has such parameters as well, it's pretty standard. If not, the actual mouse driver itself may offer that.

This way you can have precise pointer movement over a large area of mouse movement, while at the same time have a fast/long-distance mouse pointer movement over the same or even smaller area of mouse movement, depending on how fast you move the mouse.

Greetings,

Chris

[William Parcher]

Here is the part of my registry with the mouse controls. I had tried setting the MouseSpeed at 2 (1 was default) and it changed it back to 1 after a reboot. What do I change here?


http://i179.photobucket.com/albums/w310/william_parcher/e69d300e.png

[Christian Klippel]

Try the sensitivity and threshold parameters, i would think. Check how the mouse reacts at different movement speeds afterwards. I'd say it usually should allow those params to be adjustable by the mouse properties dialogue. But then, they may have decided to hide that for whatever reason. At least old Win 2k had two options, speed and acceleration.

Greetings,

Chris

[William Parcher]

I tried recommended changes and the mouse did not speed up. Actually, nothing changed at all with the mouse speed. This is what many people have said in the threads.

The problem is hardware at the mouse whereby a 400 dpi mouse won't move fast enough across a larger widescreen monitor. The fix is to replace the mouse with one that has a much higher dpi rating.

I bought a new Microsoft ComfortMouse 4500 which has 5 buttons and a 1000 dpi rating. It's fast enough (at its fastest setting it's too fast) but I don't like the shape of the mouse (high arch) and the side buttons are too far forward. I gives me cramps and I won't use it. But I learned that I need a 1000 dpi or faster mouse to get the cursor speed that I need.

[OnlyTellsTruths]

William Parcher did you reboot after each change to the registry? They won't take otherwise.

Try:

Sensitivity: 20
Speed: 2
Threshold1: 1
Threshold2: 2

Then restart the PC, let me know if that helps at all.

[William Parcher]

It didn't change anything with the cursor speed.

After a reboot the registry reset the MouseSpeed back to 1. The Threshold1 was reset back to 6 and the Threshold2 was reset back to 10. It allowed the Sensitivity to stay at 20.

Cursor speed is unchanged.

[Sam.I.Am]

It didn't change anything with the cursor speed.

After a reboot the registry reset the MouseSpeed back to 1. The Threshold1 was reset back to 6 and the Threshold2 was reset back to 10. It allowed the Sensitivity to stay at 20.

Cursor speed is unchanged.

It sounds to me like there is some third party software that monitors the settings and will overwrite any "Unauthorized" changes to the registry (and by unauthorized I mean anything not done using that particular software to make the changes). This also might be being done to prevent malware from altering the registry so if you have some sort of third party malware detector or repair that has been told to restore the registry to the last known stable save point if it detects what it considers to be an unauthorized entry.

Check for anything either by the manufacturer of the PC or your mouseware for these and then either uninstall them or use them to effect the changes and then if you try to alter the registry, save it as a restore point to possibly defeat the anti-malware (it might use the restore point that you just created as a stable one).

[OnlyTellsTruths]

It didn't change anything with the cursor speed.

After a reboot the registry reset the MouseSpeed back to 1. The Threshold1 was reset back to 6 and the Threshold2 was reset back to 10. It allowed the Sensitivity to stay at 20.

Cursor speed is unchanged.

Well, that's very odd. It works fine on my Win7. Are you sure you didn't have the mouse settings in control panel open sometime between changing the registry and restarting?

You do have the Enhance Pointer Precision box checked in the control panel mouse settings right?

ETA: Sam.I.Am is probably right. Something is monitoring and overriding the changes.

[William Parcher]

I had a Lenovo mouse suite program installed which seems to have been preventing the registry changes. I uninstalled it then made the changes again and rebooted. The changes stayed intact but the cursor speed is unchanged.

[Bram Kaandorp]

After having ditched my 15 inch CRT screen in favour of a 23 inch widescreen flatscreen, I can confidently say that I have retracted my previous reservations about widescreen monitors.

More real estate, no letterbox-like effect (except for when I'm watching 4:3, but then my screen is still bigger than the previous one, so I don't bother), and I actually find gaming to be more comfortable on a wdescreen, especially in an RTS.

[WildCat]

After having ditched my 15 inch CRT screen in favour of a 23 inch widescreen flatscreen, I can confidently say that I have retracted my previous reservations about widescreen monitors.

More real estate, no letterbox-like effect (except for when I'm watching 4:3, but then my screen is still bigger than the previous one, so I don't bother), and I actually find gaming to be more comfortable on a wdescreen, especially in an RTS.
Now get another monitor... you don't realize how much you need 2 until you have them! You can have to work sheets, programs, whatever open at the same time full screen without one hiding behind the other. Especially nice when you're referring to one while working on the other.

[Christian Klippel]

Now get another monitor... you don't realize how much you need 2 until you have them! You can have to work sheets, programs, whatever open at the same time full screen without one hiding behind the other. Especially nice when you're referring to one while working on the other.

Absolutely! A two-monitor setup is just great. Will never go back to a single monitor setup, ever.

The thing with big screens is that usually they do not provide more resolution, only more size. That means you get bigger pixels, but not really more screen space. There are, however, a few monitors that have a much higher resolution then, but they cost an awful lot of money.

Plus, with a two-screen setup you can still work in case one monitor goes south. With a single, but big and hi-res screen, you are out of luck if you don't have a second one as spare. But then, if you already have a second one as spare, you better use it together with the first one ;)

Greetings,

Chris

[Bram Kaandorp]

Now get another monitor... you don't realize how much you need 2 until you have them! You can have to work sheets, programs, whatever open at the same time full screen without one hiding behind the other. Especially nice when you're referring to one while working on the other.

I've had that in the past, but I just didn't use it as much as I thought I would.

[RecoveringYuppy]

I have a 2560x1440 Dell (not as nice as the 2560x1600, but half the price).

Apple's 27" monitors and the 27" iMac are 2560x1440 as well.

I've got three of the 2560x1600s. But I also added one of HPs 2560x1440s because it was the largest monitor I could find that would still rotate in to portrait without any custom mounting.

[RecoveringYuppy]

3200x1600 is my current favourite. One day, money provided, it'll be 3200x3200
So what's the make and model?

[a_unique_person]

I've had that in the past, but I just didn't use it as much as I thought I would.

All my PDFs end up on the vertical monitor. Ahhhh, relief a last.

[erlando]

I've got three of the 2560x1600s. But I also added one of HPs 2560x1440s because it was the largest monitor I could find that would still rotate in to portrait without any custom mounting.

Extreme want!

[Fishstick]

So what's the make and model?

Sorry, it's 3200x1200. I use two HP screens side-by-side.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Sorry, it's 3200x1200. I use two HP screens side-by-side.
Ah, thanks. I thought you might be describing one of the custom monitor flight controllers use.