4 ms·

I don't quite feel for 4:3 aficionados, looking back on my monitor progression there were the 4:3 CRTs (probably something like 1280x960), the 5:4 LCD with 1280

by zokier 5y ago

I don't quite feel for 4:3 aficionados, looking back on my monitor progression there were the 4:3 CRTs (probably something like 1280x960), the 5:4 LCD with 1280x1024 pixels, then the horrible 1680x1050 16:10 LCD (shoulda gotten 1920x1200 one..), and now finally 2560x1440 16:9 display that I still use. What I notice is that despite aspect ratios becoming wider, the monitors have pretty consistently also become taller in absolute measure. What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained

lucideer 5y ago
> What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained For me, for monitors and PC work, it comes down to OS UX. Sure, I can have all of my windows display at 4:3 with gaps either side, or on one side, but: (a) configuring that to be persistent is a pain, and (b) whatever fills that gap is either wasteful (empty space) or distracting. The default on the other hand is to have anything maximised span the full width, which means that unless I'm reading a well-designed webpage (or reader mode), I'm inevitably straining to traverse a much bigger horizontal context with my eyes all day long. Yes, 2560x1920 would be by far the preferred option of all 3, but if I need to choose between 2560x1440 and 1920x1440, the latter is a worthwhile compromise.
NathanielK 5y ago
> What I notice is that despite aspect ratios becoming wider, the monitors have pretty consistently also become taller in absolute measure. Dell 3007WFP and the Apple Cinema HD display were both ~16" tall. They're over 15 years old now. They were a expensive at the time, but they're still taller than most modern 16:9 and "27:9" displays available now. >What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained I want a 4k 4:3 screen. If you're going to dream, why not dream big? 3840x2880 please. I have a CRT that syncs to 2560x1920 and I already enjoy it for a few odd things.
- zokier 5y ago
  Modern 31.5" 16:9 (common 4k size) are essentially as tall as 30" 16:10 of yore.
  - NathanielK 5y ago
    That's true, it's just a nuisance to set UI scale on them. 1.5x works, but feels like 1440p and everything isn't that much sharper. 1x is like using FHD on a small laptop where you need to squint for everything, and 2x is just two big.

by zokier 5y ago

lucideer 5y ago

> What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained For me, for monitors and PC work, it comes down to OS UX. Sure, I can have all of my windows display at 4:3 with gaps either side, or on one side, but: (a) configuring that to be persistent is a pain, and (b) whatever fills that gap is either wasteful (empty space) or distracting. The default on the other hand is to have anything maximised span the full width, which means that unless I'm reading a well-designed webpage (or reader mode), I'm inevitably straining to traverse a much bigger horizontal context with my eyes all day long. Yes, 2560x1920 would be by far the preferred option of all 3, but if I need to choose between 2560x1440 and 1920x1440, the latter is a worthwhile compromise.

NathanielK 5y ago

> What I notice is that despite aspect ratios becoming wider, the monitors have pretty consistently also become taller in absolute measure. Dell 3007WFP and the Apple Cinema HD display were both ~16" tall. They're over 15 years old now. They were a expensive at the time, but they're still taller than most modern 16:9 and "27:9" displays available now. >What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained I want a 4k 4:3 screen. If you're going to dream, why not dream big? 3840x2880 please. I have a CRT that syncs to 2560x1920 and I already enjoy it for a few odd things.

zokier 5y ago
Modern 31.5" 16:9 (common 4k size) are essentially as tall as 30" 16:10 of yore.
- NathanielK 5y ago
  That's true, it's just a nuisance to set UI scale on them. 1.5x works, but feels like 1440p and everything isn't that much sharper. 1x is like using FHD on a small laptop where you need to squint for everything, and 2x is just two big.