3 ms·
I'm glad someone brought up the aspect ratio. That display looks so much more productive than 16:9.
by ramenmeal 10y ago
I'm glad someone brought up the aspect ratio. That display looks so much more productive than 16:9.
- enraged_camel 10y agoAs a side note, I've actually never understood why the industry converged on 16:9. It's pretty much only good for watching movies. I really miss 4:3.
- KayL 10y ago4:3 only useful for single-task, one app per screen. Most of my tasks opening 2 apps side-by-side. Wider would be better. 16:10 is the best.
- K0SM0S 10y agoI had to make this very choice for my new workstation this summer and I went with 40" 16:9 4K (Dell 4317PQ iirc) because I wanted the vertical space. It's "retina" when sitting about 80cm away which is fine for that size, and I can have 3 apps side-by-side no problem (usually terminals + some IDE in my case). I love this display. I think the way forward is to break the ratio limitations, all of them, by moving towards gigantic dispays.
- anabis 10y agoI think the TV's CRT to LCD conversion created massive economy of scale, so using 16:9 was way cheaper.
- metaphor 10y agoHere's to hoping HN has a resident SMPTE and/or display industry gray beard or two who could chime in with historical lore.
- dogma1138 10y agoMovies and later games. Monitors were always 16:10 or 5:4 to allow for a task bar. Then LCD makers didn't want to make separate panels and console gaming as well as later on streaming solidified the 16:9 home entertainment AR as the defacto standard for computer monitors.