Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all pushing taller screens, why aren't the other pc producers following?

Google, Apple, and Microsoft are all pushing taller screens, why aren't the other pc producers following?

Because it's more economic to charge the goyim for cheap, shitty, mass-produced TV panels.

Change the standard and 4:3/3:2 will be cheaper

>tfw 16:10 ultra high res might make a comeback at least on the high pc end

16:10 is honestly still not enough. Right direction though

That's easier said than done.
Companies see no need to change anything unless the goyim stop buying and since unfortunately, most modern media are produced with 16:9 in mind (Or even the stupidly wide cinema standard), even the pleb sees no need to change.

I agree with you, 4:3, 16:10 or 3:2 are all superior to 16:9.

I mean, there's definitely a market, google, microsoft and google are all doing well. 4:3 is a tablet standard, and things like the frankenpad proves that theres at least some kinda market, a market that can grow. Not to mention that this would be an easy sell for business contracts

you can get good screens but they are not cheap.

...

even watching movies is comfier with 16:10 monitors. no need to hide status bars because theres enough space for them too.

There's literally only one good screen for laptops right now, the surface book monitor.
Sure, terr are some niche monitors that are alright for pc, but they're always industrial panels with specific purposes.
My biggest issue is laptops though, even if I want to pay there's really not anything out there except for the surface book or the now aged pixel

What about 4:3

Literally just turn it sideways damn

thats what most crts had

It is cheaper to produce 16:9 screens and sell them because the panel is cut in vertical lines first and then in horizontal. More horizontal cuts - more panels.
But today LCDs are so fucking cheap (Google Pixel's panel costs about $50, Microsoft Surface Book's - $100 from resellers with all glass and touch/pen digitizers attached) that it must be punishable by death to make devices with 16:9 screens.

4:3 your viewing experience is influenced by the actual fucking near and mid periphery of the human eye, yknow, the things we use to consume data with
The perfect ratio is all fine and good, but it's not work friendly

Because you can rotate a screen on its side and all of a sudden its taller

3:2 is master race.
Content occupies 16:10 space and all other shit like task bars and browser tabs occupy the rest.

...Roger Penrose on there?

A4 paper is not 16:9 either.
You can't even read PDFs or chinese comic books with it without cancer black spaces.

>tfw almost every image that i view does not fit 16:9 screens
i want something that can show things without scrolling left/right

Claimed waifu

That was more because of technical conveniences.

Because old cinema film had this aspect ratio, and thus all television sets and first cheap computers had televisions as screens.

Is there actual demand?

21:9 Master Race, you peasants with your 4:3 hippy tear garbage.

raphael's the school of athens is not 16:10, it's not even rectangular, and movies are almost never shot in 16:9.

no it fucking wasn't

even 4:3 tilt is superior to 16:9 tilt, 9:16 is too far even for text. 3:4 is great

there is SOME demand. But these things will always require that you work on creating the demand. the important thing is that it's an easy sell, tall screens are objectively better

those are people that worked on the golden ratio, the pictures themselves aren't the point, but who they are portraying

on top of that i don't think raphael ever even made a painting with 16:10 aspect ratio.

raphael is not the point, the people that researched the golden ratio at the school of Athen are the point. (sorry, I'm a bit autistic so I can't really tell if you're agreeing or not)

yes but it's trying to us it as an argument that it's a good aspect ratio for an image, while when the golden ratio has been used in art it was almost always applied to an element of a painting and not usually to the aspect ratio of the painting itself. there is no argument in that picture that 16:10 is a good aspect ratio for a screen. 16:10 is not even the golden ratio.

That's really what you're reading into it. I don't disagree though, I think 4:3 is the right choice, it emulates the eye much much better than any of the other aspect ratios. Near and mid periphery is what you use for productivity tasks and a lot of other stuff, the entire point of wide screens is that you CAN'T see everything well, which is immersive, but not functional.

4:3 and 3:2 are the only acceptable screens. 16:10 is autist tier, 16:9 is nigger tier.

>That was more because of technical conveniences.
No it's because your non-peripheral vision is exactly 4:3 you fucking moron

>16:10
>not 8:5

16:10 is better than 4:3 for monitors and laptops. 3:2 is the best overall though.

>le 1610 maymay

16:10 is a nonsense resolution. 4:3 is the best for work and 2.35:1 is the best for film. 16:9 is an acceptable compromise between 4:3 and 2.35:1 because that's literally the reason it was created.

4:3 is in the same cuck tier that 16:9 is in, tv and consumer digital camera market tier

5:4 or 3:2 for a 'square' format, with 8:5/16:10 being the only next logical widescreen aspect ratio up from 3:2

no it isn't, kill yourself.
4:3 > 3:2. 16:10 isn't good but it's a step in the right direction, it's still too short for productivity.
I don't get what you base the idea on that 4:3 and 3:2 isn't good for laptops, because that's where they shine, you can always get more screen real estate on desktops

>16:9
Good for watching media, that's it.

>4:3 & 3:2
Great for productivity.

>16:10
Shitty meme that has black bars while watching media and is still as useless as 16:9 at productivity.

ha ha ha ha ha ha aha ahah anoan u such a cardddddddd

>le cherrypicking meme
look ma i can shiddpostin too

Christ macos is a steaming pile of shit.

still not enough.
Also what the fuck is up with that messy interface, does apple OS actually look like that?

man i hate chromatic aberration

curved 7680x2160 when???

When you kill yourself for being a retarded gaymer girl.
3 screens you can tilt are so so much more functional

Where did I say 3:2 isn't good for laptops? 3:2 is the best for laptops, 4:3 isn't. There's no reason for 4:3 to exist when 3:2 exists, 3:2 is the exact same resolution but wider which is better for consuming media and is closer to the A4 ratio.

i don't like the idea of bezels between my pixels.

who the fuck says kys and gaymer and takes themselves seriously? Sup Forums is that way -->

Well if you don't like bezels between your pixels I suggest seeing a psychologist and telling them you want to resolve an issue with warped priorities.

or how about we just get LG or Samshit to make a ultrawide 8k screen and stop shitposting?

>3:2 is the exact same resolution but wider
???? what. No, 3:2 isn't wider, 4:3 is taller.
Widescreen is a marketing speak thing, width is generally the bottleneck of how much screen you get on a laptop.
Resolution is totally circumstantial, 3:2 has more pixels than contemporary 4:3's because it has more R&D, not because there isn't potential for more pixels on a 4:3 display.
A4 is even taller than 4:3. so no, 3:2 is not closer

A lot of people consider 1:1 to be the best aspect ratio for a monitor, but wouldn't 1:2 or 1:3 be even better because they would be like multiple 1:1 monitors stuck together?

you can't turn those screens so you'll just have a lot of screen real estate but in a sub-par aspect ratio. why compromise because of bezels that don't actually mean anything?

no, because too tall is also inconvenient. I don't even think 1:1 is convenient, it's a meme ratio

i actually like wide screens unlike you, so it's not sub par for me.

if i was into multi monitors i'd do something like 3 40-50 inch 1080p tv's turned vertical with the thinnest bezels i could find. i'm sure that would trigger your autism.

You know what I mean you turboautist.

Well if you like wide screens that's just more reason you're an idiot that shouldn't voice their opinions, because you don't like them because of preference, you like them because you're wrong and misguided

no, I don't. they'll both be 15 inches wide, so the 4:3 will be taller, the 3:2 won't be wider. they'll be equally wide, but not equally tall.
width is the bottleneck for laptops. and 4:3 fits the near periphery better, there's nothing to argue.
I like 3:2 though, I'd be perfectly content with that staying the industry standard forever, it's more than functional enough for me

vertical resolution is the only thing that really matters. aspect ratio is almost completely irrelevant.

why would they both be 15 inches wide?

no it isn't, unless you have superhuman eyesight.
Vertical SPACE is important on laptops, cause you'll only have that one screen most of the time. And the eye doesn't need to travel as much if your screen is closer to square

the amount of workspace is dictated by the resolution not the aspect ratio.

Young Borat?

because that's what producers are concerned about, since it's the widest angle.
4:3 screens were as wide as their 16:10 contemporaries when those were the laptop standards, they were both marketed as 12inch and 15inch etc.
why would they be equally tall though? that was your claim
yes, but that's pretty quickly getting unimportant, since 4k and the things we'll get after that will show us more lines than we can comfortably work with anyways. that's why we need good dimensions too.
And regardless, this doesn't change the fact that wide screens are not comfortable for the human eye, even if you could stuff a lot of programs into the frame

matter of opinion. my current display is 37 inches wide and in 4:3 that would be 27.75 high x 37 wide.

the extra vertical gain wouldn't do me any good.

i have a 22 inch 16x10 monitor at work and it's great but at larger sizes anything more square than 16x10 starts to get too tall.

16x9 is fine and here to stay so get over it you small screen viewer.

Who the fuck wants a status bar while watching a movie. What would you even do with it you're watching a movie theres no interaction needed. Kys

The fact that the screen is 37 inches is just an indication that wide screen is bad because you felt the necessity for a 37inch screen right in front of your face.
Your eyes would have a much easier time absorbing information if those dimensions were in 4:3 or 3:2 instead

am I the only one that think that that icon are two men kissing?

but why 15 inches wide? at 16:9 that would be about 17" and at 4:3 it would be even worse at about 19". that's way too big for a laptop.

you would be surprised at how easy it is on the eyes.

you can't quantify my ease of ability to absorb more information in a more square screen of similar size. you're completely talking out of your ass.

It's your subconscious trying to tell you something

that mac users are homos? that's already a diffused and accepted meme

what? the issue with a laptop being wide isn't that the mass of the screen is too much in total, the problem is that the widest angle being too big makes it cumbersome. the widest angle will always be the... wide angle.
why'd it be more inches wide at 4:3? that makes no sense.
Sorry, I just don't understand what you're saying,
even the potential, marginal increase in height in the laptop can be mitigated, look at the surface book

what do you mean I can't quantify it? do you claim your eyes are different somehow?

...

i'm awaiting your logical metrics that aren't bullshit pseudoscience.

...

...

>why'd it be more inches wide at 4:3? that makes no sense.
it wouldn't but screens are measured diagonally so a 15" wide 4:3 screen would be about 19" diagonally.

thistbqhwyfamalam

dublones confirm

what, are you kidding? see the blue and red circle? that's your functional vision, the green is the vision you can't really absorb but where you can react to movement, twitch reaction and such.
notice how it's pretty much perfectly circular? so something wider than tall doesn't suit our eyes for practical applications.
4:3 is a good compromise though, because a little bit of far periphery means you won't be distracted by the borders, but 1:1 is good too.

oops

you can't appreciate periphery, that's your problem.

look i know where you're coming from but you're not gonna convince me to go back to square panels based on how the eyes work.

that shit is more important when considering VR panels close to the eye itself. panels at a distance take up considerably less degrees of field of vision the further away they get.

i average an arm and a half length from my 43 inch 4k tv. text is crisp as fuck and large as fuck. my actual view to the screen is probably 60-70 degrees and in reality most of the peripheral image at this distance is not screen at all but the shit around the tv.

if you really want to get into actual eye resolving shit wankery, you can't even read text that's not directly where your eyes are focused so you might as well use a 1x1 inch screen to maximize your faggoty ass 'functionality'.