There are people here RIGHT NOW who unironically believe 16:9 is better than 16:10 or 3:2

There are people here RIGHT NOW who unironically believe 16:9 is better than 16:10 or 3:2

Still rockin' 1366x768 bruv

I prefer 16:10 but finding good monitors at reasonable prices is impossible.

Wait... are there 3:2 monitors? I've used 4:3, 8:5 (some people call it 16:10) and 16:9. I miss 4:3 and I find the idea of 3:2 interesting.

I don't think there are any 3:2 monitors, but there are 3:2 laptops.

Nothing stopping you from creating a 16:10 or 3:2 custom resolution on your 16:9 monitor.

16:10 made sense back in the day where 30" 2560x1600 was the Rolls Royce of monitors and 24" 1200p was quite neat for workstuff, but these days you can get 27/32/40/etc 1440p and 4K monitors

what are you even talking about. What does aspect ratio have to do with pixel density?

>16:10 made sense when it was generally available, but now that it is not, the 16:9 that replaced it is the way to go

4:3 was the best. 16:10 vs 16:9 is literally placebo, you get the same height increase by moving taskbar to the side.

But if you do that you lose width. Stop pretending like 16:10 doesn't offer more screen real estate.

Width is overabundant. Desktop window systems simply weren't designed for widescreen.

You lose it in 16:10 as well, retard.

You say this when ratios like 21:9 are sought after.

16:9 is absolutely retarded and was made under a retarded idea by a complete retard

Sought after by whom. Only 3d gaymen can take advantage of it.

i still use my syncmaster 940bf as my only monitor.
had to find an adapter so i can connect it to my new graphics card

You can't be this stupid.

completely up to perference

oh. and 4:3 master race
(tho 5:4 was nice too)

who 1:1 here

I'm enjoying my 21:9 monitor. Lots of work space and looks way better than two monitors next to each other.

Now normalize it by pixel count, retard. It's like claiming that 4k has 4 times more screen space than fullhd.

What do you think m8?

80x25 only

Holy shit you're actually retarded.

1. for bringing PPI into this

2. for not acknowledging that even if you move the taskbar to the side you still have more vertical real estate on 16:10.

16:9 is just a standard, we need standards

Go ahead and try to convince people to use 16:10, but it will never be good enough because it will never be standard

People seem to buy macbooks all the time.

1. I brought it in because you didn't account for it. When you normalize by it you see that you lose horizontal space. Which is fucking overabundant anyway, but you claimed otherwise and it's wrong.
2. Only if you move to the side as well.

>Having more space isn't wanted
This is literally your argument.

I've yet to see a single person that things 16:9 is too wide.

I've got a 16:10 monitor that can switch to 4:3 with the press of a button and I love it, it even re-scales stuff as best as it can, which is perfect except on video games.

*thinks

I hate my 12.5 inch 1366x767 because I have to move the taskbar to the side (I prefer left side) to see the YouTube like/dislike bar in Maximized window. Another option to overcome this problem is to reduce the width of the browser window enough until YouTube resizes the page and then just resize from the top until Windows puts th windows vertically maximized. I hate it. The highest resolution I ever used was 1600x900 on a monitor. I see people talking about 2k and 4k when I just wish to have anything higher other than a post-720p resolution and/or a taller screen.

There are people right now arguing about aspect ratios

My point is both 16:10 and 16:9 are too wide, and the difference between them is miniscule. Both are worse than "square" resolutions, because windows with their horizontal menus and titles were designed for square monitors.

Yeah it's a huge market...oh wait

>too wide
that's just your opinion man

I'm just pointing out that 16:10 gives you more space to work with that's it.

Two fucking lines of text. But assuming the price and other characteristics are the same, sure, 16:10 is better than 16:9.

Really activates the almonds.

bamp

1:1 is obviously the patrician's choice.

>Microsoft gives out licenses like candy to OEMs for their shitty $299 desktops
>MacOS is only available on $499+ hardware, most are buying $1000+ MBPs
Also, your pie graph includes Sierra but it doesn't include deprecated versions of MacOS, but it does include old versions of Windows. Misleading asshole.

There are like 30 different versions of macOS if you're going to use version numbers like that

anyway the net is dominated by mobile now, it's like 75-25 android/iphone, nobody cares about windows vs mac anymore nigger

16:10 is the superior ratio aspect but unforuantely HDTV standard pretty much superseded it. The only reason that 16:9 was chosen was because of OTA bandwidth issues.