4 ms·

I don't care about resolutions > 4K, like, at all. Things I care about: - More HiDPI laptops that are not 16:9, preferably 15"-16". - More 4K Monitors in the

I don't care about resolutions > 4K, like, at all. Things I care about: - More HiDPI laptops that are not 16:9, preferably 15"-16". - More 4K Monitors in the 22"-24" size range, preferably not 16:9. Having more of those things would have a much bigger impact on my daily display usage than a 5K TV. Apparently, the market doesn't share my preferences in displays very much. We're finally getting 16:10 and 3:2 alternatives in the laptop space, after more than a decade of enduring 16:9, but other than that, almost everything 4K is 16:9 14" and 27"-32".

Eisenstein 3y ago
Why do you dislike 16:9?
- nottorp 3y ago
  It's only good for content consumption. If you do code or anything that has text in it, the vertical space needed is infinite. And even if you edit 16:9 video content, you need extra space for your controls. Incidentally, on a 16:10 monitor you can have a 16:9 movie or game take up the whole upper part of the screen and still have your dock or task bar visible.
  - jimjimjim 3y ago
    Definitely agree. For software development I always end up rotating my monitors to portrait. You are always going to have more lines in a file than will fit on a landscape 16:9 screen. A taller screen gives you a much better "view" of the context of the code. And with window title bars, tabs, url bars, bookmarks, headings and sub headings the first jira issue appears more than halfway down the screen
  - diffeomorphism 3y ago
    For "infinite vertical space" you can do 9:16, i.e. portrait. That said, widescreen is quite useful for two 8:9 windows side by side, which works less well on more square ratios.
    - nottorp 3y ago
      > For "infinite vertical space" you can do 9:16, i.e. portrait. The top feels too high for me then. Most ergonomic advice says your eyesight should see the top of the monitor horizontally doesn't it? Also you will run into some web interface that was designed with landscape in mind sooner or later. I have a friend who keeps two 16:9 monitors, one landscape and one portrait. That may work. > That said, widescreen is quite useful for two 8:9 windows side by side, which works less well on more square ratios. Matter of taste. I prefer multiple smaller monitors so i can keep a full monitor in my field of view. What you describe requires a monitor so large that you can't look at it entirely from programming distance.
      - rbanffy 3y ago
        > Also you will run into some web interface that was designed with landscape in mind sooner or later. It’s fun when websites assume I’m using a mobile because I’m on a rotated 1200x1920 display.
      - diffeomorphism 3y ago
        > Matter of taste. I prefer multiple smaller monitors so i can keep a full monitor in my field of view I think this is mostly due to software support, e.g. for ultrawides (21:9) you often can have it pretend to be two or three separate monitors. At that point the only difference between multiple smaller monitors and one wide one is whether you have bezels. That said, in my opinion the problem is not the aspect ratio but the number of pixels. For example, I could take my 2560x1440 (16:9) display and put a black bar on the right to make it 1920x1440. That would be a "better" ratio, but having the extra horizontal pixels does not hurt (e.g. for a dock). The problem is that Xx1080 is just not enough vertical pixels, period. No matter whether it is 1920x1080 or 1080x1080.
        nottorp 3y ago
        Oh my multiple smaller monitors are 1920x1200 :) There are no 4k 16:10 monitors that I know of - one day I'll have to make the jump.

Eisenstein 3y ago

Why do you dislike 16:9?

nottorp 3y ago
It's only good for content consumption. If you do code or anything that has text in it, the vertical space needed is infinite. And even if you edit 16:9 video content, you need extra space for your controls. Incidentally, on a 16:10 monitor you can have a 16:9 movie or game take up the whole upper part of the screen and still have your dock or task bar visible.
- jimjimjim 3y ago
  Definitely agree. For software development I always end up rotating my monitors to portrait. You are always going to have more lines in a file than will fit on a landscape 16:9 screen. A taller screen gives you a much better "view" of the context of the code. And with window title bars, tabs, url bars, bookmarks, headings and sub headings the first jira issue appears more than halfway down the screen
- diffeomorphism 3y ago
  For "infinite vertical space" you can do 9:16, i.e. portrait. That said, widescreen is quite useful for two 8:9 windows side by side, which works less well on more square ratios.
  - nottorp 3y ago
    > For "infinite vertical space" you can do 9:16, i.e. portrait. The top feels too high for me then. Most ergonomic advice says your eyesight should see the top of the monitor horizontally doesn't it? Also you will run into some web interface that was designed with landscape in mind sooner or later. I have a friend who keeps two 16:9 monitors, one landscape and one portrait. That may work. > That said, widescreen is quite useful for two 8:9 windows side by side, which works less well on more square ratios. Matter of taste. I prefer multiple smaller monitors so i can keep a full monitor in my field of view. What you describe requires a monitor so large that you can't look at it entirely from programming distance.
    - rbanffy 3y ago
      > Also you will run into some web interface that was designed with landscape in mind sooner or later. It’s fun when websites assume I’m using a mobile because I’m on a rotated 1200x1920 display.
    - diffeomorphism 3y ago
      > Matter of taste. I prefer multiple smaller monitors so i can keep a full monitor in my field of view I think this is mostly due to software support, e.g. for ultrawides (21:9) you often can have it pretend to be two or three separate monitors. At that point the only difference between multiple smaller monitors and one wide one is whether you have bezels. That said, in my opinion the problem is not the aspect ratio but the number of pixels. For example, I could take my 2560x1440 (16:9) display and put a black bar on the right to make it 1920x1440. That would be a "better" ratio, but having the extra horizontal pixels does not hurt (e.g. for a dock). The problem is that Xx1080 is just not enough vertical pixels, period. No matter whether it is 1920x1080 or 1080x1080.
      - nottorp 3y ago
        Oh my multiple smaller monitors are 1920x1200 :) There are no 4k 16:10 monitors that I know of - one day I'll have to make the jump.