oh bah, http://celephais.net/board/view_thread.php?id=60094 but you guys know the thread i'm talking about. 

I dont mind if people wanna use mine for stuff.
Its nice to be asked though, I mean im sure there are some of mine kicking around...... There's not much to stop people from using it if they find it. 

http://forums.thinkingwithportals.com/maps-and-modding/october-10-mapping-contest-t2044.html

Ends November 30th or somesuch. 

but is there some sort fo trick to widescreen browsing in firefox?

I have my first WS monitor and apart from using the zoom feature, I'm stumped as to how to make it look right.

Although it seems to vary from website to website, some are fine, but Func looks particularly narrow as if for a 4:3 monitor. 

what is widescreen browsing? apart from browsing internet sites on a widescreen monitor?

i imagine it's just like an optical illusion. func is like 500-550 pixels wide? if you're on 1440x900 or even worse, 1680 x 1050, it's going to look downright tiny. 

yeah browsing on a widescreen monitor. It's a 24" screen at 1920*1080.

So there's no way around it apart from zooming? 

That's about the best advice I think, maybe up the text size as well, even if it looks weird at first. 

zoom or lower res, i guess. :S 

 

I will play around with some settings to see what can be done.

Can Func be made wider at all or is that a deliberate design choice? 

I have windows 7, and just dragging the window to the side auto fits it to the right half of the screen, which is how I prefer to browse the web on my 24" wide screen. I don't know why you would want to make func fit the entire screen, that seems silly. 

but more than it currently does :) 

I open 3 windows each with Func in, and resize them so they fit 1/3 the screen each. Side by side, they fill my monitor with Func. If I've feeling really brave, I have a different thread / news item in each one. 

So do widescreen monitors have any advantage over regular ones after all - or does the awkwardness prevail? Every now and then I check them out in stores but they just seem weird to. 24" only because they are so wide, the actual height seems lower than with 4:3 ones. Of course it would help if they showed some actual stuff, desktop, programs, maybe games, and not fucking widescreen movies all the time... 

They're wider. 

trust me, func's width is perfect for reading. You don't want http://s1.image.gd/o/f2/f2d147b44fe4ed86e9de526b05fd4d965f63e071.png (how I would like kick all the idiotic forums with full-width width layouts in the nuts...).

You can use Opera with its user stylesheets or Stylish for Firefox if you want to fix sites. I do it to set a width of 600-800 for forums, maybe you have fisheyes and actually like lines with 250 characters.


negke: I like mine (1680x1050). You get a higher fov in games that support it. For websites and documents tallscreen would make much more sense. If you like having multiple windows of something open, it is very handy. 

But non-widescreen monitors are TALLER. 

Never mind the width, feel the ratio!

Two A4 pages, full size, side by side; two web windows side by side, Photoshop with all tools on screen and loads of space for the image; BspEditor with all four views on screen and big enough to see without squinting; learn a new application with the program open in one window and the tutorial running next to it in another window. But do not watch porn on it, it'll have your eyes out. 

It really works for displaying Goatse in all it's glory \o/ 

There are widescreen monitors you can rotate onto their side so you get one giant newspaper-like effect while browsing websites. Seems silly to me though.

And being taller doesn't really matter, since most people keep their eyes around mid screen, and it's easier to scan across a horizon than scan vertically, which means being able to fit more stuff side by side is useful.

I like to keep my erotic stories on the left, and my xvids on the right. 

spirit, i have to ask, what's up with you?
your example is 1660 � 877 pixels. no one is asking for that.
that's the second time you use the argument that a full width func would look shit when the suggestion was just to increase it slightly.

we get that a full width func looks like shit because it's true. why not address the actual suggestion. would an 800 pixel wide func look shit? even 1024?

iirc, qmap was wider than func is... i'll have to dig up the qmap backup to check.

as for widescreen lcds...
if i could pick up a 4:3 lcd, i'd prefer it. even nitin's huge 1920x1080 is still slightly shorter than 1600x1200. imagine a res like 2048x1536.
the way i see it, wide screens are better for movies and games but 4:3 is better for reading and working in general. i remember there were a lot of 4:3 lcds when lcds first started becoming popular, but these days, they seem to have all disappeared in favour of 16:10s. 

qmap was 600. 100 wider. i think it looked slightly better... 

Some websites allow you to choose your stylesheet of preference, why not make it an option to choose between the current width and a bigger (not liquid) width? 

I have a 24" widescreen and a 19" 4:3.

Apart from the web, I have never used an application where I thought I would be better off with 4:3. And the web is just not an issue: on sites that can deal with 16:9 or 16:10, use the full screen. Otherwise just keep the browser in the middle of the desktop.

Although I do use the 4:3 now and then, I really would not miss it.

(I have it connected on dual screen all the time but have to adjust the resolution to below optimum on the 24" if I want to spread a window across both. I used to have BspEditor set up where the 3D window was on the 19" and everything else was on the 24" but it was kind of forcing the issue as the 24" is fine on its own.)

I just realised that even my laptops are widescreen, although they are a mixture of 16:9 and 16:10. And one of them is six years old. Kind of take widescreen for granted now. 

it just comes back to that whole thing about how squares are bigger than rectangles for the same amount of room.

obviously, a 1:1 ratio would be weird but 4:3 for me is the best compromise between the two.

mike, i find it odd you say you've never used a program that you thought would be better in 4:3 because you're using one right now to post here. ;)
jokes aside, when have you ever seen a website that works better with wide screen? information is always sorted vertically like we have for this and like all forums in existence, news sites, etc.
in theory, you'd want a monitor the ratio of a4 letter paper to see the most text at once, but in practice it'd be stupid because you'd be craning your neck all the time.
still, i don't see how 16:10 or 16:9 is anything but inferior for web browsing.

coming back to my other post, films otoh, are perfect on wide screen.