Remember when people used to feel special for having a 1680x1050/16:10 monitor?

Remember when people used to feel special for having a 1680x1050/16:10 monitor?

What happened?

16:10 is god tier it's just not widely available

Recently acquired one for use with laptop, such a massive subjective upgrade.

I'm using a 1680x1050 monitor right now, definitely sticking with 16:10 when I upgrade.

I have a 1920x1200 monitor and it's ok. I prefer the 1080p monitor since it feels more natural

16:9 was more popular for TV and laptop panels because MUH MOVIES from MUH NORMIES, so it was a simply matter of cost reduction.

16:10 went extinct because it's too expensive to bother producing separate panels for the workplace when comparably sized 16:9 panels do the job nearly as well.

Under 1200 vertical pixels always felt somewhat cramped to me. 1440p on the other hand feels like a generous amount of vertical space, and the 16:9 ratio just gives it a little more space in the sides compared to 16:10.

I wish 16:10 laptops were still generally available. My 15" 16:9 just doesn't feel right for work compared to my old 15" 16:10. Don't have the funds for a 3:2 Surface Pro or expensive 16:10 Mac or whatever

>not adjusting DPI with higher resolutions
What's the point in buying a fancy monitor if you're just going to use it to view a few lines more of shitty text at a time? I hope you enjoy your eye strain and/or back problems from leaning in constantly.

I beg to differ. Obviously adjust it on a high res laptop, but at 27" you better buy glasses if you can't use 1440p without scaling.
I scale/zoom the browser though, no reason not to for 1024 pixel width websites.

I still own 3 of them

What's so good about it?

>tfw 16:10 laptop

More vertical space.

What's the point of buying a high resolution monitor if you're just gonna make it function like a lower-resolution one?

Jewness happened. 16:9 panels are much cheaper so most companies try to push the plebeian aspect ratio even though it's suboptimal for anything but vidya and movies.

Though at least there are options with desktops, in laptop sector Apple and Microsoft are literally the only options now if you don't want to get cucked.

I honestly wish 4:3 laptops or 5:4 ones were available. The square shape is really nice, I love how my T60P handles.

Chromebook Pixel is 3:2

might consider getting one then
16:9 is terrible on a laptop

>16:9 ratio just gives it a little more space in the sides compared to 16:10.
No it does not.

1440p 16:9 have 2560 pixels in width, 16:10 have the same but 1600 vertically instead so 16:10 have more pixels than 16:9.

Remember when people used to care about picture and motion quality?

Remember when aspect ratio numbers were not doubled for no reason at all?

Had a 1680x1050 monitor back in the day before realizing that it was an unusual resolution or aspect ratio.
Learned that I could fullscreen 16:9 movies without having to actually fullscreen the video player.

When I upgraded my monitor I went with two 1920x1200's.
16:10 is god tier for portrait screens since it's still just wide enough that webpages load as intended, and just a little extra space to work with on Word / Excel.

4:3 laptops are by far the best, the aspect ratio makes them more portable than this stupid ass muh thin fad. 4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4

and thats good because?

Are you fucking retarded? The only thing widescreen's good for is movies. More vertical space is good because you use your computer for almost anything other than watching movies

this, fuck 16:9
>picrelated, 12 inch 4:3 next to 17 inch 16:9

I have 2x 1920x1200 monitors, I want a 2x 2560x1600 so bad.

Watching 16:9 content without having to full screen, better for documents and productive activities, more natural aspect ratio for sight.

How does it make them more portable? Besides, isn't the keyboard + trackpad idea for a 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio but not so ideal for 4:3?

Take the new Macbook and look at the base, there is nothing else left to cut to end up with a smaller base, and following the base, there is also no way to make the screen 4:3

>How does it make them more portable
See >4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4
>Besides, isn't the keyboard + trackpad idea for a 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio but not so ideal for 4:3?
No. 4:3 laptops were literally perfection. Pix extremely related, it's the best laptop ever made.

>4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4
I ... don't see it user. Books are pretty fucking 16:9.

As for pic related: Way too much space wasted on the palm-rests and between trackpad and palmrest. Cut that unnecessary space and you're back to 16:10.

>I ... don't see it user. Books are pretty fucking 16:9.
Oh well, suck a dick. It's still true.
>Way too much space wasted on the palm-rests and between trackpad and palmrest
That space is there for the superior screen. I cut out the part where I said they should make the trackpad larger and turn it into a clickpad.

The squarer the laptop is the bigger it is if width is the same.

With the same horizontal resolution, the less square ratio is worse than the square one.

A 1920*1440 monitor is better than 1920*1080 for that reason.
The squarer the ratio the better it is, it takes more space.

If I can slap the same TV panel in a monitor housing why would I bother adding cost by cutting bigger panels?

Its the same shit that happened with 1366x768. I can keep the same vertical pixel count that 1024x768 panels use and just add more horizontal pixels to make some half-assed widescreen for all the consumers to lap up.

The way these panels are binned, its less chance for defects per panel = better yields. This is also why small screens in phones/tablets have insane pixel densities and why the vast majority of large displays (24in+) have terrible pixel densities.

All this wasted space and trackpad buttons. Fucking disgusting, man.

>I want a 2x 2560x1600 so bad.
I'm selling Eizo CG303W for 400€ and NEC PA301 for 500€.
Been hating them from the very beginning, too large and no way to look at the screen without seeing glow (the PA301 has little backlight bleed on the left center. It appears after the panel matrix has heated up).

That wide ass screen with practically no vertical space. Fucking disgusting, man.

I know, I made the image from memory of my last laptop I owned IBM R40 2682CAG, and a laptop I saw that was very "wide".

That too. Hence it's all about 16:10 master race. Horizontal space matters too, doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3

No, it's all about 4:3 masterrace.
>Horizontal space matters too
Fuck no.
>doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3
Why would I want to? I've only got two eyes, and even so I'd still only be reading one at a time.

>doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3
1920*1200 16:10

1920*1440 4:3

So what about two documents?

Side by side? That's the same width.
Vertically? Well 16:10 have lower vertical resolution so it loses there.

It's more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. All content looks cramped to me on a 16:9 monitor whereas on a 16:10, it looks natural.

>1920*1440
Would be 2560*1600 on a 16:10 screen, allowing you to display more.
Vertically everything upwards of 1200 is probably fine.

That too tbqh, also not just content but the ugly ass lower bezels on 16:9 screen laptops.

>2560x1600
Would be 2560x1920 on a 4:3 screen, allowing you to display more.

those laptops are dirty af and looks like they owned by a hobo

16:9 full hd faggotry happened. i miss my 16:10.
tried buying a new 16:10, but they don't exist with high resolutions.

Dont try to understand that autist, he is just another g retard who thinks everything not popular/widely used is the best ever

You're a fucking moron, I'm in no way a hipster. I liked 4:3 when 4:3 was popular and simply still do.

bla bla bla, let me guess, you like dumbphones too

im still using a 16:10 screen. feels nice for editing 16:9 content

No.
Yup

thats not very nice man

You can fit two 8x11" documents side by side

Something that's worth that wide ratio faggots:

Calling something that is

No I've got a smartphone. I don't not like dumbphones though

You can that on 4:3 as well but without needing to scroll.

16:9 at 1920 have 2.07m pixels
4:3 at 1920 have 2.76m pixels

nonstandard = shit

>he doesn't have a 1680x1050 laptop

once you hit 40 inches the vertical real estate benefit of 16:10 goes away

I was getting sick of paying premiums on obsolete aspect ratios anyway

>tfw rocking a 1680x1050 desktop

Inches have nothing to do with it.
If I have 1080p 40 inch, that doesn't make it better than a 39.99999999 inch with 3x 1200p monitors.

>went extinct

friendly reminder that apple still use 16:10.

We upgraded to 21:9.

Though, honestly for games like Warblunder I think I would prefer 4:3 or 3:2 more.

...

It's because 1440p is enough vertical res whereas 1080 was a bit too restraining. The benefits of 16:10 aren't as pronounced anymore.

Ultra wide is the new hot hipster ratio

>What happened?

It's not the early 00s anymore. Technology caught up - standard monitor res now is 1080p and people feel special when they have 1440p or 4k displays.

>Technology caught up
2002 I used 2048*1536
>standard monitor res now is 1080p
So it's a caught down then.

2001, IBM had 3840*2400 monitors.

Do you wish for a medal

I've had my metal 15 years, if anything, I should polish it.

>more natural aspect ratio for sight.
Yeah no, fuck off cunt

>remember when

like today? yeah, feels good man

How retarded are you?

>best Monitor for watching Sup Forums
Recommend me Sup Forums

A 1920x1200 monitor would probably be best for that

what's Sup Forums recommended hive mind brand?

Ultrawide is beautiful, but not when games scale based on the horizontal resolution instead of the vertical, especially for fixed camera games (ie, you get less vertical view area instead of more horizontal)

Vast majority of games are Hor+ though

>better
>obsolete

LMAO. 16:10 is as obsolete as quality.

All the 16:10 posters have ascended to heaven and sit by the right hand of anime jesus. All thats left are perverted 16:9 basement dwellers and 4:3 cretins

If you go 1200 like user said, then either ASUS VS24AH-P ($223) or a U2415 ($320) if you want higher quality / better color / thinner bezels (for multi-monitors).
Else if you go 1080 get a ASUS VC239H ($137) or Dell U2414H ($222).

Movies and TV shows are usually 720p, or 1080p at best.
4k is so rare at the moment that it probably won't be common for another 5 years in the movie industry, and even longer for 4k streaming TV / movies to catch on.

1080 lets you fullscreen a movie, and is the exact aspect ratio most things are filmed in.
1200 lets you fullscreen a movie without having to fullscreen the app due to the extra size, assuming your video player doesn't have some shitty UI that eats up screen space.

I will never see the appeal of 16:9

It's not wide enough to comfortably run 2 programs side by side, so what's the point then? you're just giving up vertical space

>mfw still 1360x768

bought a raspberry pi and cant use my pc monitor because it has no hdmi

it is a standard, you mong

i still use a dell fp2007 1600x1200 next to my new stuff

we get it, you vape
i still use my hd202 at my office today. had them since 2007 or 2008

my only complaint is the wires have started to kink a bit around the Y splitter, they're great headphones though and I think it's just user error

Bezels thicker than 1-2mm pretty much ruin this

This reasoning never made sense to me.

You can use similar reasoning to justify getting 16:9. The more rectangular the laptop is the bigger it is if height is the same.


So instead of 1680x1050, get a 1080p. Instead of 1920x1200 get a 16:9 1440p monitor, etc.

i've been using a 24 inch 16:10 screen everyday in the last 7 years

now everytime i use a 16:9 it feels awkward as fuck, it lacks vertical space

Vertical space is far more valuable than horizontal. Widescreen's only good for watching TV and movies made in the last decade.

16:10 has barely any more vertical space than 16:9.
If you were talking about 4:3 or 3:2 I would see where you are coming from, but 16:9 and 16:10 aren't that far apart.

>So instead of 1680x1050, get a 1080p. Instead of 1920x1200 get a 16:9 1440p monitor, etc.

You don't compare 1680 against 1920, you compare 1920 with 1920.

1920 16:9 vs 1920 16:10.
2560 16:9 vs 2560 16:10.

1050p is in a resolution tier of it's own.

1200p and 1080p are the same tier.

The difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is the difference between usable and unusable.

Quit referring to resolutions as *p, it just makes you look retarded. Call them by what they are. 1024x768 or XGA for example.

And all this time, I never knew that my mid-2007, 16:10 FLATRON was mustard race.

I thought I was just a weird person when I liked it more than the 16:9 alternatives.

By like a quarter of an inch

I still have one.
no money no honey

>You don't compare 1680 against 1920, you compare 1920 with 1920.
That's just as arbitrary. If there's a 16:9 monitor that is bigger than any available 16:10 monitors, it's nonsensical to tout the extra screen real estate for the 16:10 monitor vs. a 16:9 monitor that isn't the biggest. That works the other way too though, e.g. if a 16:10 monitor is bigger than any available 16:9 monitors.

You're right, and that's a better way to frame/word it than what I typically see.

There's a reason I use "p" because it's shorter and you know that damn fucking well so stop acting retarded.

Then you compare monitor sizes, not monitor ratio.

16:10 always have higher resolution than the same tier 16:9 version.

my cable is still perfectly fine, but while i was in uni and gave them to a friend for a while i think his fucking ears may have started melting the plastic on the cups. anyway, i cleaned off all of the plastic and now i just use them with the foam. zero issues with the cable still, though

i still laugh at idiots who overpay for stuff like bose