5 ms·
Aside question: Why is it so hard to get 4:3 or even 16:10 monitors new these days?
by usaar333 16y ago
Aside question: Why is it so hard to get 4:3 or even 16:10 monitors new these days?
- bad_user 16y agoI have a 16:10 monitor, I had no idea it is hard to get one.
- psadauskas 16y agoBecause the bulk of LCD panels come in HD-TV scales, which is 16:9 (1920x1080 for 1080p, for example). Its cheaper for the manufacturing plants to only have to deal with one ratio.
- megablast 16y agoI thought it came about because screens are measuered in diagonal distance, and the diagonal distance for 16:9 screens contains less pixels than for 4:3, so they are cheaper to make.
- psadauskas 16y ago4:3 vs widescreen seems to come down to its what most people are used to, and so its what the majority (sadly, not us nerds wanting as much vertical as possible) buy. I was referring to the very few 16:10 monitors available now, almost all of them are 16:9.
- jluxenberg 16y agoAnother thing you can do is buy a smaller 16:9 one and rotate it 90 degrees. If you set up two side-by-side in this configuration, you've got a display which is almost square.
- InclinedPlane 16y agoIt's not hard, it just costs money. Dell has an excellent line of high quality monitors (e.g. the 24" IPS U2410).
- psadauskas 16y ago...which costs almost as much ($600 vs $800) as the 27" 16:9 U2711. 1920x1200 @ 16:10, or 2560x1440 @ 16:9. I know I'd prefer 2560x1600, but I don't know if the even make them. Apple's 27" and 30" displays are 16:9, too.
- pilif 16y agothe 30" display is 2560x1600 (16:10), also, it's now supposed to be superseded by the 27" display (2560x1440) which makes me hope my 30" doesn't break down any time soon as I want my 200 extra pixels.
- zargon 16y agoI haven't seen any news that the u3011 is being discontinued, where did you hear that?