Why the fuck does nobody make 16:10 monitors anymore?

Why the fuck does nobody make 16:10 monitors anymore?

Other urls found in this thread:

anandtech.com/show/10670/dell-introduces-ultrasharp-up3017-30inch-professional-display-with-1610-aspect-ratio-and-dcip3-color-space
medicaldaily.com/bionic-lenses-will-improve-eyesight-3-times-better-2020-vision-seeing-perfect-without-334824
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Because normies want no black borders on full screen videos

this picture ruined the way I see 16:9 forever. thanks.

This is why I still use a monitor from 2004.

Dell Ultrasharp line has a few
got this one in 2011 and it is great

>nobody

What is the point of having the monitor the golden ratio?

Dumb meme

dell
anandtech.com/show/10670/dell-introduces-ultrasharp-up3017-30inch-professional-display-with-1610-aspect-ratio-and-dcip3-color-space

you must be new.

I N F I N I T Y
n
f
i
n
t
y

same

It gives you significantly more vertical screen space and is more in line with the human field of vision. Plus a lot of 16:10 displays were actually built to last, instead of the 5 billion chinkshit manufacturers turning out cookie cutter 16:9 displays.

>$1249.99
For that price I'd expect a higher resolution, like 3840x2400.

>is more in line with the human field of vision
sure, if you're a cyclops

>and is more in line with the human field of vision
Evidence for this?

The OP image and basic understanding of golden ratio?

Some preliminary searching shows one claim that we process information faster when presented in a rectangle with dimensions matching the golden ratio, but that's not the shape of the human field of vision really. Also, it would only really work if you only ever used full screen applications on one of those monitors, else you can just shape windows the same way.

WHY did i have to come here to shitpost. WHY

I just switched from a
17" 4:3 Syncmaster 997DF @1600x1200
to a
22" 16:10 Dell E228WFP @1680x1050.
I wish I had bothered to test this one when I put it in the closet years ago. The Dell is so much better.

Just go 1440p or 2160p and you get enough vertical space. 1920x1200 was great but it's time to move on.

>tfw perfect 4:3 resolution for old games
I wish 16:10 would be more popular in laptops aswell. 120 Pixel might not sound like much, but it's a huge difference when you actually use it.

Because of the pixels

PROLITE XB3070WQS-B1
PROLITE X2485WS-B3
PROLITE E2280WSD-B1

You're just a nu-Sup Forums dumbass who can't even do a basic internet search.

Why are you guys even on this board.

Pro tier:
Eizo ColorEdge CG247X
Eizo ColorEdge CS2420

Nominally-office-but-still-2-classes-higher-than-Dell tier:
Eizo FlexScan EV2456
NEC EA245WMI

...

>every apple computer uses high dpi 16:10 display
>expect industry to follow the apple trend
>tfw the industry standard is still 1366x768 TN panel

>apple computers start using glossy screens
>expect industry to follow the apple trend
>they actually follow it

because we all want chink vision like in our animes >.

Because of the Jew

Because 21:9 is superior

There are currently over 250 different 16:10 monitors on the market.
You can also still buy new 5:4 and even a 1:1 monitor.

The future gamers dream of.

because the industry is now in the process of switching to 32:9

I bought an Ultrawide just for movies, I hate the black borders...

Because movies come in 16:9 and non-autistic people rotate the monitor 90 degrees when they need more vertical estate instead of shitposting.

How do i know if my monitor is 16:9 or 16:10?

muh moeshit is 16:9 now I actually get my 24" and not robbed by black fucking borders.

Cut it in half vertically and count the rings.

yes

(vertical resolution)*16/(horizontal resolution)=X

but this also works

Finally enough space for my gaming mouse for my sicc fliccs.

>significantly more vertical screen space
So does buying a bigger monitor
>more in line with the human field of vision
what the fuck are you on about?
>Plus a lot of 16:10 displays were actually built to last
and that was because of the aspect ratio?

You have to know the resolution, pleb. Here's some common ones.
1280x800, 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200, 2560x1600 = 16:10
1280x720, 1366x768, 1600x900, 1920x1080, 2560x1440 = 16:9

sign me the fuck up

It's perfect! How much?

>Thickpad

can't wait for the razer version

Lonovo made a goofy side monitor laptop first.

>movies come in 16:9
Very few movies are 16:9
Most are 21:9 or wider

rotate that screen 90 degrees and you have a deal

best laptop

the point being?

laptops are too thin

>256:9

best laptop: Deluxe edition

2560 x 1440 is more useful than 1920 x 1200. Taking some pixels off the sides wouldn't make it better.

a mac-friendly version now also available

$500 extra version

Because higher aspect ratio monitors are a good excuse to sell you less pixels for the same diagonally measured "inches".

>manufacturing cost is determined by pixel count

>got this one in 2011 and it is great

I'm still using one from 2007. It's not even 1080p.

>$1249.99
>only 60hz

Look, I don't need some meme 144hz gaymen shit, but 60hz hurts my eyes after looking at it for hours. Should be 90-100hz for that price.

I have a 30 inch 16:10 1440p dell monitor from 2008 I got for $120 on Craigslist and I love it so much

deadliest laptop in la

It mattered way more back in the bad old days when it was the difference between a 24" monitor that was basically unusable, and one where you could get shit done.

Over time though the key advantage of 16:9 as a standard aspect ratio in that you can almost always get a larger higher resolution 16:9 display with around the same ppi as a smaller lower resolution 16:10 display.
Now that you can get a 43" 2160p display with around the same PPI as a typical monitor and as much screen space as several smaller displays put together there isn't much point to 16:10.

16:10 = 1.6
Golden ratio = 1.61803

They are not the same

Because no one cares about your autistic shapes

Imagine how much more graphics you could fit in that base

at least two, I bet

>tfw the laptop I was using in 2007 was 1920x1200
Where did it all go wrong Sup Forums?

16:10 is useless for developing. Give me 48x9

Multiple monitors are a symptom of bad window management skills and ADHD.

I wish there was an 30" 8:5 3840×2400 OLED/QLED/whatever monitor

You mean 1600p?

I still don't own an Eizo square.
Life is suffering. They never pop up used on eBay, probably because they're so good.

>want a certain vertical length
>want to change the aspect ratio to achieve it
>not just buying a 16:9 with that same vertical length and getting some extra space on the sides
You don't have to buy a monitor based on its horizontal length

Only $1100
:^)

...

How do I achieve good window management

...

>still less information on the wide

you tried

>implying I'll bother to search for new content for both screens and not just drag the size up in GIMP

The "vertical length" is always less on 16:9, for example 1080 instead of 1200, 1440 instead of 1600 etc.

You may buy a bigger screen but you still lose in resolution. You only win in pixel size.

I didn't imply that

>ok Yuki, now open up howtoposeforastockphoto.jpg

>1920x1920
that PPI

ignore the linux autists. there's nothing wrong with multiple displays

Unless human eyes get better and better, there will be a resolution at some point where pixels cannot be seen because of the PPI. So by getting that resolution you no longer have to think about getting more, it's all about the physical size after that. You can just scale the content as you want.

But what if you had maximum optimised screen space across multiple monitors

Could I have been doing 83 things at once this whole time

Lol what. She's staring at an image of a stock photo

>Unless human eyes get better

medicaldaily.com/bionic-lenses-will-improve-eyesight-3-times-better-2020-vision-seeing-perfect-without-334824

Shut up windows autist eat black balls

I think NEC still does.

Because every 10 panels of 16:10 you make is 11 panels of 16:9.

About the same as 24" 1920x1200

that's not how it works, fella. it's a whole separate production process, which is why it's more expensive rather than "sticking with" 16:9 which is the standard.

yeah that's awful

get 1440p screen

there are a lot of old dell enterprise 16:10 monitors out there, they're cheap and are very robust. they're the thinkpads of monitors.

There are dozens of new 16:10 monitors on the market.

The only reason to use 16:10 is for a portrait monitor

A jojo reference

>those Pro tier monitor prices
>that resoltuion
>no G-Sync/FreeSync or 144Hz support
>only redeeming thing is the meme 16:10 aspect ratio

Why should I buy that piece of shit again?