BRING

BRING
BACK
>16:10

16:9 IS A FUCKING MEME

16:10 FAGS UNITE
1440x900 here

I used that resolution for years on my thinkpad until I upgraded to a 4k XPS.

4k is a fucking meme man

Was there ever any doubt?

16:10 is a pseudoscience meme.

glorious 3:2 master race, comfy af for browsing and productivity.

43" 4k guys. It's not that 1200p or 1600p is bad, but 2160p is actually a lot better.

I use my 4:3 for movies mostly and my 16:10 for vidya. Very happy with both.

All my monitors are 16:10, 5:4 or 4:3.

That's a 5:4 you dunce

>16:10
don't you mean 8:5 ;^)

still using an ancient 305t plus

Just bought a 16:10 monitor and it will arrive today, I had 4:3 untill now
I really hope it's not another Sup Forums meme

Fourth post, best post. There's nothing inherently special about 16:10, just as there's nothing inherently special about 16:9.

16:10 can be turned into 16:9 by adding horizontal pixels and 16:9 can be turned into 16:10 by adding vertical pixels. 16:9 is the dominant monitor ratio because it's the dominant TV ratio.

Are there any IPS, >60Hz, 2k or 4k, 16:10, with freesync monitors out there?

8:5 is the worste meme yet.
16:9 is rather aidsy too
4:3 f GOAT

It's hardly the dominant TV ratio altogether since most movies have black lines on the top and bottom.

>ITT: arbitrary bullshit

No wonder you're stuck with 16x10.

Former 24" 16:10 user to moved to 32" 16x9.
Same DPI, just more desktop space in every direction.

>most TV is movies
It really isn't though...

1024x768 here, the god resolution

Pleb tier.
2048x1536 is where it's at.

>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!
>I WANT TO BE DIFFERENT!

Nobody is forcing you to use 16:9.

>Nobody is forcing you to use 16:9.
Yes, but it really bothers OP that someone might be using 16:9 and not know that it's WRONG!

>w-we need 19:6 for dem movies!

>all movies are either in 1:1,85 flat or 1:1,239 scope (rarely 4:3 academy ratio)

If 16:10 would be the popularnone you faggots would wsnt 16:9, contratard hipsters

portrait for shitposting

what a stupid fucken thread

1:1 master race

I think most of them just haven't moved past 2009 issues.
16:10 WAS superior at most monitors were in the ~23" range and a 24" 16:10 had pretty close to the saem horisontal size as a 23" 16:9, but with more vertical resolution - having had both 1200p and 1080p monitors, I can attest that 1200p is far better than 1080p for general use.

But we're not in 2009 any more, you can get monitors in massive sizes now, the idea that you need 16:10 for desktop real estate is deprecated.

I've been using a 1680x1050p monitor for the past week or so at work and honestly it's a fucking abomination but that's most likely because it's only like 22 inches.

I still use my dell wfp thing from 2007, 1920x1200 at 27". I have to sit back at least one meter to not notice the pixels but it is worth it. So much more screen real estate you can't get with 1080p. I had to force my desktop resolution to 1080p in the past few months because of shitty coded nip games and it was fucking horrible, every single program showed so much less and i had to get used to scroll down for every single fucking thing.

Too bad the backlight already gives out and the color is too warm now. I hope i can get something good below a grand.

HP Envy 32"

Actually scrap that, they've renamed it' the HP Omen 32" and it has Freesync now.
I guess that's neato if you have AMD.

Just get a Macbook.

16:10 is better, only reason they switched to making 16:9 was to reduce manufacturing costs.

...

These are both memes from 2009 though...

Just get a 32" 16x9 and move on user...

here is how you fix 16:9

was that so hard?

But that's not how it works, you literally have 10% more vertical pixels. Why should that be a meme?

wow how the fuck did I mess up that so much

this right here
2560x1920 is nice too.

Because get an $30 VESA bracket, mount your monitor in portrait mode and you'll get so much more vertical space, no 16:10 can cover it.

Bullshit 16:10 is ideal for nds emulation in portrait mode. shitty 16:9 gets shrunk because of lacking vertical space. Only integer scaling is where its at.

Also, I'm already mounting my 16:10 27" rig to the wall.

>tfw glorious 16:10 thinkpad

I want 4:3 back

>16:10 thinkpad
not 4:3
faggot

>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!
>I WANT TO HAVE LESS PIXELS!

21:9 is the future

I have more pixels though...

32" 4K = more pixels than 0 (ie. the number of pixels in an existing 32" 4K panel)
32" 1440p is also more pixels at roughly the same DPI as 24" 8:5, which is also more than the nonexistent 32" 16x10 panels.

You still see less. Aspect ratio is not about pixels, pajeet.
Also, 32" 16:10 does exist and is even mentioned in this thread.

No
Make all screens 3:2
or better yet 1:1

Are there any 3:2 standalone monitors?
It's not as good as 4:3, but it's a step back in the right direction.

3:2 is actual perfection...
Do you even golden ratio?

Bring back 1:1

1:1 never existed historically, it's only existed as of very recently with Eizo's meme monitor.

>tfw 21:9 has more vertical space than 16:9
Feels a bit good man.

nah, you want a slightly large space horizontally for multiple windows

I use multiple windows without any issue on a 1600x1200 monitor.

you'll see why 3:2 is superior when you do some work on the computer

I'm not sure if you implying that I don't do work on my computer or that I haven't tried working on a 3:2 monitor, which is true.

4:3 is much nicer for working with text than any wide-screen format I've tried, be it 16:9 or 8:5.

Isn't that just 8:5?

21:9. all that horizontal screen space and still they have the dock on the bottom wasting what little vertical space there is...

the latter, on 4:3 monitors the windows and text gets squishy and doesnt make 80 characters, that's why I prefer 3:2

Yes. It's also 32:20.

>not 6400:4000
full pleb

Yes but they're easier to compare when their somewhat in the same scale

That's 16:9 you tard

2560x1600 is 16:10. And 32" is too big.

>not using 21:9

For shame

>Not a 21:9 master race.

LOL!

Enjoy your top/bottom black bars on any block buster movie.

>using a desktop monitor to watch movies
ayy lmao cucked

>Enjoy your top/bottom black bars on any block buster movie.

You're right, how could anyone handle that?

>tfw pic didn't upload

2560x1080 and 3440x1440 are not quite the same aspect ratio.

Jee it's so short they can't show the top of the ship in the frame.
It's objectively shit.

you have black bars at the top/bottom.
What is the pioint?

>being this much of a pleb

Did you get a magnifying glass out to spot them? Other than that screenshot, I've never once noticed black bars when watching stuff. Then again I don't sit watching things with the screen inches from my face.

>Did you get a magnifying glass out to spot them?
no, they are very easy to spot as it contrast the bright sky and we already talked about it.

I wasn't the one who cared about black borders, I often don't press fullscreen on netflix as the borders on the side is tiny and window managers handle it better when it is not technically fullscreen.

>four
>by
>three
please.

16:10 is byfar the best aspect for portrait.
16:9 and 21:9 are too skinny for portrait, lines of text will be too cramped.
4:3 and 5:4 are too square to take advantage of portrait.

>16:10 WAS superior at most monitors were in the ~23"

This. I recently got a 27" 1440p monitor to replace my 24" 1200p for general use and it's fine.
~24" 1080p monitors seem noodle-like, but I don't really mind 16:9 with larger ones.

in 16:9 you see wider than in 16:10, i have more pixels

In 16:10 you see higher than in 16:9, i have the same amount of pixels.

>the actual vertical space is not defined by the height of the monitor but by it's aspect ratio
lol youre an idiot

The squad is a bit more than a few days in the last few years, bit more and more to the extent of the problem. However I am not able to make this a bit more complicated than what you mean by having to get the chance to win a new game. So if I do get it and if it doesn't take a while in the future, I'm sure it will be in the same way as the other side of the house.

I agree, anyone who has the taskbar on the bottom with a 16:9 monitor is really missing out.

That said, whatever flunky at Microsoft set the minimum vertical taskbar width should die in a car fire.

>16:10
FUCKING DELET

golden ratio best ratio

They would rather sell you 21:9 monitors so they can sell you more inches for lower production cost.

>1440x900 is 16:10
>1600x900 is 16:9
>16:10 claim there is objectively more work space
>math shows height is the same but 16:9 has 160px more horizontal space
Explain yourself Sup Forums

would it be expensive for smaller companies/groups to produce some?

Anything but 4:3 is a meme.

1440x900 equivalent in 16:9 world would be 1440x810.
1600x900 in 16:10 would be 1600x1000.
Anyway, both 1440x900 and 1600x900 are pleb tier laptop resolutions. Unless your resolution is at least 1600x1200 or 1920x1200 your laptop belongs in the bin.

Who says it's my laptop and who says my desktop output is anything lower than 1920x1080? :^)

17.7:10 > 16:10

Dual 1980x1200 reporting in.

1600x1200 is fine too.

I really like 16:10 and I still use a 24" 1920x1200 monitor in portrait mode with my daily setup, but at this point it's been pretty much entirely superseded.

The only place where it had a tangible benefit is with 1920x1080 vs. 1920x1200, but that's pretty low res nowadays. 2560x1600 monitors are fairly unappealing since the vast majority seem to come in 30" sizes and sacrifice the DPI improvement of 2560x1440 @ 27". Nowadays both are deprecated by UHD in terms of workspace. There's no reason to go out of my way to get a 16:10 screen when a 3840x2160 monitor has more space in both dimensions.

What if my laptop has a resolution of 1280x800? (^:

>4k is a meme
Why I keep seeing this?I'm thinking about returning the 1080p 144hz monitor I just ordered and getting a 28 inch 4k monitor.