Who even likes this?

Who even likes this?
Why am I forced to use a product from a fruit company to avoid it?

have you tried not having autism?

Nobody is forcing you to do anything.
If you get your ideas and opinions from the mob, this is what happens.

dell has some good 16:10 stuff

16:10 (it still bothers me that it's not called 8:5) is barely any different and if it would be the standard, you'd probably be ask for 16:9 instead.

ya but it's all so expensive

just like apple products

Like what?

I cry every six years about the money I lose buying the only displays with sane aspect ratio but it is worth it.

Why does everyone here hate 16:9 with such a passion?
16:10 is barely different except for black bars on standard widescreen video?

Some people work with these so called personal computers. If you don't write documents/spread sheets or do programming/art then I guess you wouldn't notice any sort of improvement apart from proper pc games giving you more viewport.

im going all in on 3:2

the beauty of it is too complicated for people like you to understand.

Why can't nips into basic math?

> 16 / 9
> 1.77777...

Well, no.

I swear I'm seeing this kind of "Think by yourself" post in every thread.
I thank you for it of course.

phi is 1.618..., so 16:10 is a closer approach to the golden rule.

>take monitor
>turn it on stand
>put into portrait mode
This is what people that do real work do.

Yeah, but when you view something on yor shitty display with inch hueg taskbar and tabs in browser, it turns into something like 16:7

Just search for a dell 16:10 on amazon. There are a couple good options for only ~$50 more than 1080p 16:9s.

I don't regret at all spending 50-80 more dollars to get the better version of something I use many hours a day.

>take objectively superior 16:10 monitor
>leave it how it normally is rather than messing up cables and wasting time
>open 2 documents side-by-side
This is what people that do real work do

surface studio aspect ratio is perf desu

>can't have two documents side by side in 1080x1920 but can in 1200 x 1920
>cries about messing with cables as if it needs to be done more than once
Lol

16:10 is massively different.

Nigga, I didn't say that you couldn't on 16:9. I just said it's objectively better on 16:10, which is true.

I remember when 16:10 was the norm at the start of the "widescreen" meme. Back then, and still today, I think it's retarded to remove vertical area from the screen

It isn't though. Vertical space is more valuable than horizontal space in all of the applications you listed earlier besides art which benefits from both. The extra 120px you get on a 16:10 landscape monitor is worthless compared to an extra 1000 in a portrait setup.

120 pixels are enough for taskbar and other shit to spend

Grasping at straws. People "doing real work" use portrait monitors. You're just being a nigger.

The fact that 16:9 is standard on laptops triggers me beyond belief. Who thought it was a good idea to use an aspect ratio that has even less space on a computer that's cramped for space to begin with?

If you have 2 documents open side-by-side, which is definitely better than only having one, then the extra 120 px means that you can see another 4 or so lines of text. I'd say that's much more useful than having a sideways monitor which can only display one thing, albeit with more context.

People doing """"""real work"""""' need both horizontal and vertical space t bqh.

You're not. Just make your own display. What are you, stupid?

16:10 is the actual standard, retard

also, why isn't the objectively superior 16:16 a thing?

16:9 monitors are dear to the unimaginative peasant-burgher whilst
16:10 monitors appeal to the sensitive poet-aristocrat-philosopher. This will be clear in a moment when we reflect on the matter of association.

Practical plebeian folk judge a thing only by its immediate touch, taste, and smell; while more delicate types form their estimates from the linked images and ideas which the object calls up in their minds. Now when 16:10s and 16:9s are considered, the stolid churl sees only the two monitors before him, and bases his favour on their relative capacity to pander to his sloppy, unformed ideas of visual artistry.

On the other hand the gentleman and thinker sees each in all its natural affiliations, and cannot fail to notice that in the great symmetries of 16:9 monitors fall in with slovenly pulp movies created by peasant-burghers, whilst 16:10 monitors stand proudly with the highest art conceived by man such as the Mona Lisa by Leonardo DaVinci and the Parthenon.

16:9 monitors are the hieroglyphs of blind emotion, inferiority, servile attachment, and gregariousness - the attributes of commonplace, stupidly passionate, and intellectually and imaginatively undeveloped men.

16:10 monitors are the runes of beauty, invincibility, wonder, pride, freedom, coldness, self-sufficiency, and dainty individuality - the qualities of sensitive, enlightened, mentally developed, pagan, cynical, poetic, philosophic, dispassionate, reserved, independent, Nietzschean, unbroken, civilised, master-class men.

16:9 is a peasant and the 16:10 is a gentleman.

I'd go for a 16:16, desu

$1000

most monitors are not designed to be rotated in portrait mode. They are specifically designed with certain viewing angles in mind.

>TN panels
>current year

...

scary shit

4:3 mister rice reporting

movies generally aren't released in 16:9 though. it'd be a much more effective image if you cited shit tv shows on the right hand side.

Yeah, not for that much. Sticking to my 16:10 for now.

People who do """""""""""""""real work"""""""""""""""""" use 3:2 or 4:3

Show me a 16:10 5k display and maybe I'll consider it.

Very much this.
Love watching old japanese cartoons on my glorious 4:3 screen As They Meant To Be Watched (tm)

3:2 > 16:10 > 1:1 >>> 16:9 >>> 4:3

Prove me wrong

5:4 was the best

>still using """"
It's ((())) now. (((Goldstein)))

I'm imitating this you dipshit

This.or 1:1. This whole wide meme makes no sense at all. What is the benefit in removing vertical space?
If you want a monitor that is 3 feet wide why does it have to be 1.5 feet tall?
You don't gain anything from having a shorter monitor.
I'd love to have a monitor as wide as an ultra wide and equally tall. Now that's productivity.

>Why am I forced to use a product from a fruit company to avoid it?
You're not though.
Apple, Panasonic - 16:10
Microsoft, Google, Lenovo (X1 Tablet) - 3:2

I swear, Lenovo could've easily used the 2160x1440 X1 Tablet screen on the X270 but they still settle for that 16:9 garbage with huge top + bottom bezels.

I'd kill for a Lenovo Yoga with a 3:2 screen, my next laptop will hopefully be the Surface Book or a Surface Pro 4 but they're so expensive compared to Lenovo

I had a 16:10 screen for a good 5 years, and moving to a 16:9 because muh 120 refresh rate it feels about the same, if only because I went for a bigger resolution than before (1680x1050 > 1920x1080)
Videos on jewtube however are slightly better, but that's about it

>Microsoft, Google, Lenovo (X1 Tablet) - 3:2
All glossy garbage

>removing vertical area from screen

all right, show me a 1600x1000 screen, since 1600x900 is removing vertical space

>protip: it's really rare to find, IF it exists

21:9?

useless

More vertical space, compromise for 4:3 and 16:9 content.

Exactly why 4:3 and 5:4 are best for work

All surface devices (after pro 2) has 3:2 ratio. Its superb

I was going to say this, 3:2 is perfect for """real work""" since standard ISO pages fit perfectly on the screen. Surface pro series screens are almost exactly the same as a piece of A4. And that means the whole thing fits nicely in a bag/briefcase/whatever which has folders and binders and stuff in it since those are usually designed around A4 documents.

Also I have two 16:9 monitors on my desktop and I use architecture and 3d programs all the time for "real work" and they're fine. I usually grab the sidebar menus and put them on one screen and have the other entirely dedicated to viewports and top/bottom menus. Works perfectly.

>What is the benefit in removing vertical space?
The human FOV is somewhat oblate and favors wideness over height.
Rounded FOVs don't neatly overlap with rectangular panels, but a wider screen than a square would show more to the eye at once.

>I was going to say this, 3:2 is perfect for """real work""" since standard ISO pages fit perfectly on the screen.
Yeah, enough room to view a document and no room to have controls.

Sure, but I don't have to view my title bar and taskbar at all times.
The window would be in my view.

Even if it was 5 feet tall,id rather put my windows where I want them and have the option to see what I want to see rather than being forced to use something narrow and minimize shit.

>2016AD
>made me reply
3/10 is the best i can do

resolution is more important than size. would you really prefer a 1728x1080 16:10 screen over a 1920x1080 screen?

*more important than aspect ratio

What's the highest resolution 4:3 or 5:4 available? I've never seen higher than 1600x1200 or 1600x1280. There's of course that 1x1 1920x1920 but it's expensive as fuck.

There was supposed to an image of the FOV there.
Central portion is the binocular field, the shaded is representation of monocular range.
4:3 is a rough fit of the total peripheral FOV. Maybe a little wider.


As for why something like 21:9 was ever adopted, I suppose saccades do favor horizontal over vertical.

lol friend
join the ultrawide masterrace

This, RAW files from DSLRs are 3:2 too

When I had a 4:3 monitor I could basically use it like two wide ones stacked on top of each other
This is nice af.

JUST

>Draw a rectangle around arbitrary parts of an object
>OMG IT'S PERFECT AND BEAUTIFUL

The golden ratio/rectangle is perhaps the oldest case of apophenia in existence.

Daily reminder the human eye can't see past 16:9

Every single one of you is a shit eater. 21:9 is the obvious master race.

Take a knife and slice away at the top and bottom bezels. Almost all monitor manufactures use 16:10 panels to save money by having common parts. Then, you can activate the extra pixels by forcing a 16:10 resolution.

If you have trouble cutting, just force a screwdriver between the bezel and the screen and lever it off.

16:10 is great, 3:2 also pretty good
Why did 4:3 have to leave?

What are you talking about? You can easily find 24 inch 16:9 monitors in 1920x1080, and other 24 inch monitors in 16:10 1920x1200. They're both called "24-inch", but one has less vertical space. In both inches and pixels.

This is true. 16:10 is better not because of bullshit pseudoscience, but simply because it has more vertical space.

Truly the downs syndrome of monitors

Well then somebody is lying

>what is the holy Golden Ratio and why is 16:10 as close to it as practical

Affinity to shapes is one of the earliest signs of autism

I like it, and people who consume digital media using their TVs and computers (read: most of the population) like it. It's hard to find alternatives because not many people want them.

>not having a vertical taskbar on any widescreen screen

The fact that chiclet is standard on laptops doesn't trigger you in the least?

probably called 16:10 so you can easily compare it to 16:9

So it's the old "be an autist or be a cuck" dilemma.

There was literally one 5:4 resolution (namely 1280x1024), and nobody seems to know how and where it even came from.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

So the ancients who revered it were autist? Mathematics is autist too?

Not really, because I have my mechanical keyboard with me to soothe my autism

Apple is already acknowledged.
Microsoft is good.
Google and Panasonic are glorified netbooks; might as well keep using a T60.
Lenovo is a 99% copy of Microsoft, so it's irrelevant.

...

>not understanding the sheer idea of standardisation
>being this dumb

Not quite, you still get 24 inches on the diagonal, but vertical space is reduced much more than horizontal is increased. See pic.

You are all fucktards. If you want 4:3 get 4:3, if you want 16:9 get 16:9. How retarded can you fucking be.

the only people who would ((((want)))) to get 16:9 are brain dead retards.

it's pretty hard to find a good 16:10 monitor for a reasonable price. i was more or less forced to buy a 16:9 so i just compromise and set it to a 16:10 resolution with 1:1 pixel ratio so it has black bars on the sides. still better than 16:9.