7 ms·

I don't care so much about pixel density; it's the ratio that bothers me. 16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works wel

by bo1024 15y ago

I don't care so much about pixel density; it's the ratio that bothers me. 16:9 is ridiculous for anything except watching HD television. (It also now works well for gaming, but only because developers decided to cater to widescreen.) 16:10 is the widest that makes sense for any day-to-day computing tasks, yet it's getting harder and harder to find; forget reasonable 4:3 types.

mikepurvis 15y ago
Usage adapts to what's available. I have two 1650x1050 displays side-by-side (so, twice as a wide as "ridiculous"), and I run three 80-char width terminals or two web browsers side by side per display, using xmonad. I like it.
huggyface 15y ago
A world of users seem to disagree with you. Maybe it isn't quite as ridiculous as you hold it to be.
- tomflack 15y ago
  The users don't have a choice for the most part and it's a small enough difference that most don't know about it. That doesn't mean it doesn't negatively impact people. If you want a non-16:9 laptop you have to buy Apple.
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    When my WUXGA-screen Dell Lattitude failed I went looking for a replacement. But Dell decided to stop offering ~15" WUXGA screen laptops; it was all "wide screen" (aka "short screen") now, which meant the loss of a row of 200 pixels. I ended up getting a Thinkpad W500 from a Lenovo outlet. I should probably start looking for replacement parts now because when this one goes bad I'll again have to fight against whatever the media-consuming, non-developer market is being sold.
  - huggyface 15y ago
    The users don't have a choice for the most part The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common. Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous". What horse shit.
    - Symmetry 15y ago
      I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it cheaper to make a "15 inch" 16:9 screen than a "15 inch" 4:3 screen. The later is bigger, but your typical consumer shopping based on marketing materials won't be able to figure that out.
    - pkamb 15y ago
      But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt." http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-again http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-aga... > Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
      - huggyface 15y ago
        This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right". So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use. When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
- pkamb 15y ago
  So glad the specs of pro development/business machines like the aforementioned Dells and ThinkPads are being influenced by the $299 laptops at BestBuy.
- gurkendoktor 15y ago
  For the opinion of the majority to be meaningful we would need similarly priced choices. I have a glossy, wide display because that's the only 13" OS X computer money can buy. Please don't include me in an argument by majority. :(
bandy 15y ago
Depending on my task, I may rotate the 1920x1200 screen in front of me 90° to 1200x1920. I find that much more useful for reading large amounts of text and/or code. The underlying OS supports it, the monitor arm this display is mounted on supports it, yet everyone on the job was remarking simultaneously how odd it was and how useful it seemed as they were shoulder-surfing while I picked through a large code-base. A full-screen Terminal window on this monitor in landscape mode is 270x81, which is just plain silly, but 81x270 in portrait mode is very, very useful.
- hollerith 15y ago
  >A full-screen Terminal window on this monitor in landscape mode is 270x81, which is just plain silly, but 81x270 in portrait mode is very, very useful. Except you are not going to get 81x270 characters in portrait mode unless the characters are square, as in Chinese script.
  - bandy 15y ago
    D'oh! Point taken - actual data: 167x133. Still very handy.
- r00fus 15y ago
  I have two such rotated displays on my work desk side-by-side to get a 21" x 23.5 combined screen. The problem I get is that viewing angle on average displays is pretty week in the vertical angle (great, so nudge it up or down an angle) - but if you put it in portrait mode, this acute viewing angle really hurts - just moving your chair from one part of the desk to another can expose it. Unless you're going with IPS displays, the portrait mode of a monitor is somewhat compromised. I still hate 16x9. Please give me back my 4:3.
  - watmough 15y ago
    An HP ZR24w is less than $400. If you're looking at a screen for extended periods, then it's worth spending some cash. This particular monitor is also 1920x1200, which is a pretty good resolution, WUXGA I think, like the big Dell Precision I used to have.
protomyth 15y ago
you probably won't like some of the suggestions for 4K, one was 4096 x 2048 (2:1).
- justincormack 15y ago
  Possibly with anamorphic lenses though, like wide film.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    Can you explain the need for anamorphic lenses?
    - miahi 15y ago
      If you watch the 2:1 display through an anamorphic lens you can see it stretched as it's a 4:3 one. Food for thought: can you create a Fresnel anamorphic lens?
- bo1024 15y ago
  Nope :). Because I really want around 18 inches of vertical height, and how will I fit a 3-foot-wide screen on my desk?? (Edit: Others have discussed the viewing angle issues with rotating a screen, but it is an option.)
rhizome 15y ago
For what it's worth, just last night I was dicking around on Newegg looking at laptops and found that a Panasonic Toughbook appears to support 1900x1200 at 15", which is ~1.5 aspect ratio (4:3 = 1.333; 16:9 = ~1.8). The relevant term you want to search for is "WUXGA".
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  WUXGA is 1920x1200
  - rhizome 15y ago
    Noted!
lifeformed 15y ago
16:9 is awesome if you use a wide, vertical taskbar.
- Raphael 15y ago
  I also keep the taskbar vertical. The important thing if you use a mouse is to have it on a side that's not next to another monitor so the cursor stops at the edge.
- keithpeter 15y ago
  Ubuntu Unity. 1920 by 1080 on a no-name LCD LED monitor. Launcher on left set to 32px. Browser in right half, terminal/Gedit in left half (use the shift-alt arrow key shortcuts to semi-tile). Might consider a second 1920 by 1080 to get to 4 million pixels on the cheap
jjcm 15y ago
The monitors I work with are 20:11. Hard to find, but I enjoy them. Let's me tile two 1024 width windows side by side - good for doing cross browser comparisons. Ratio doesn't bother me on a monitor, I can always find some way to utilize it. I would appreciate a higher pixel density though.
Freestyler_3 15y ago
I have one 16:10 screen, and then a few years later I want to have two 16:10 monitors... but no luck finding one for a decent price. :( Now i Have one 16:10 and one 16:9 (I suggest not doing this because you will look at the differences every day)
- sciurus 15y ago
  Agreed. If you're going for two monitors, you should try to get the same model. Otherwise you'll spend a lot of time fiddling with color settings and still never get them to quite match.
Zak 15y ago
I'm a fellow 4:3 fan. I understand why width is more useful to some users than height, but I feel like it's a monoculture. Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter. A friend of mine said the term around his house for these HD displays is "short screens."
  - justincormack 15y ago
    TV engineers used to call wide screen "fewer lines".
    - jamesbritt 15y ago
      I suppose if they reduce the height even more they can call it "ultra-wide".
      - Zak 15y ago
        Sony made (and may still make) a clamshell PC intended to fit in a coat pocket with a 1600x768 screen. I'm not sure how they marketed that aspect ratio.

by bo1024 15y ago

mikepurvis 15y ago

Usage adapts to what's available. I have two 1650x1050 displays side-by-side (so, twice as a wide as "ridiculous"), and I run three 80-char width terminals or two web browsers side by side per display, using xmonad. I like it.

huggyface 15y ago

A world of users seem to disagree with you. Maybe it isn't quite as ridiculous as you hold it to be.

tomflack 15y ago
The users don't have a choice for the most part and it's a small enough difference that most don't know about it. That doesn't mean it doesn't negatively impact people. If you want a non-16:9 laptop you have to buy Apple.
- jamesbritt 15y ago
  When my WUXGA-screen Dell Lattitude failed I went looking for a replacement. But Dell decided to stop offering ~15" WUXGA screen laptops; it was all "wide screen" (aka "short screen") now, which meant the loss of a row of 200 pixels. I ended up getting a Thinkpad W500 from a Lenovo outlet. I should probably start looking for replacement parts now because when this one goes bad I'll again have to fight against whatever the media-consuming, non-developer market is being sold.
- huggyface 15y ago
  The users don't have a choice for the most part The migration of the monitor industry to 16:9 wasn't one sided. Given the option between 4:3 and 16:9, users overwhelmingly chose 16:9. Eventually the demand was so unbalanced that 4:3 became less common. Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. The GP claimed that it was "ridiculous". What horse shit.
  - Symmetry 15y ago
    I wonder how much of that is due to the fact that it cheaper to make a "15 inch" 16:9 screen than a "15 inch" 4:3 screen. The later is bigger, but your typical consumer shopping based on marketing materials won't be able to figure that out.
  - pkamb 15y ago
    But consumers did not choose 16:9 over 16:10, because consumers cannot tell the difference. We can thank TV panels for that switch: LENOVO: "Again, we can thank the LCD manufacturers for this change. By cutting everything in the same aspect ratio, they have less waste per large sheet of glass. Since these manufacturers make more selling TV displays than laptop displays, the PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt." http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-again http://blog.lenovo.com/perspectives/display-ratio-change-aga... > Really the notion that manufacturers, except for brave Apple, unilaterally decided to force this on users is completely asinine. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use.
    - huggyface 15y ago
      This has nothing to do with 16:9 or 16:10. This is 16:9 over 4:3. In the case of the iPad, it's completely true. Apple decided that 4:3 screens were the best form factor for a hand-held tablet. I have both an Android tablet (A500 with ICS) and an iPad 3rd generation. I -- without doubt -- prefer the form factor of the A500, not just because it presents a much better experience when viewing videos. It's simply a better form factor. Apple is not all knowing, and their reasons for choosing their form factor are, as always, more nuanced than what is "right". So they made 4:3 happen, rather than settle for common and cheaper 16:9 or 16:10 screens. Guess what ratio Android tablets use. When Apple made the iPad pretty much the only 10.1" screen was a 4:3 1024x768 netbook screen. The claim that "Android" (and every other tablet maker) chose the cheaper screen -- one that didn't even exist -- is a bit hard to stomach.
pkamb 15y ago
So glad the specs of pro development/business machines like the aforementioned Dells and ThinkPads are being influenced by the $299 laptops at BestBuy.
gurkendoktor 15y ago
For the opinion of the majority to be meaningful we would need similarly priced choices. I have a glossy, wide display because that's the only 13" OS X computer money can buy. Please don't include me in an argument by majority. :(

bandy 15y ago

Depending on my task, I may rotate the 1920x1200 screen in front of me 90° to 1200x1920. I find that much more useful for reading large amounts of text and/or code. The underlying OS supports it, the monitor arm this display is mounted on supports it, yet everyone on the job was remarking simultaneously how odd it was and how useful it seemed as they were shoulder-surfing while I picked through a large code-base. A full-screen Terminal window on this monitor in landscape mode is 270x81, which is just plain silly, but 81x270 in portrait mode is very, very useful.

hollerith 15y ago
>A full-screen Terminal window on this monitor in landscape mode is 270x81, which is just plain silly, but 81x270 in portrait mode is very, very useful. Except you are not going to get 81x270 characters in portrait mode unless the characters are square, as in Chinese script.
- bandy 15y ago
  D'oh! Point taken - actual data: 167x133. Still very handy.
r00fus 15y ago
I have two such rotated displays on my work desk side-by-side to get a 21" x 23.5 combined screen. The problem I get is that viewing angle on average displays is pretty week in the vertical angle (great, so nudge it up or down an angle) - but if you put it in portrait mode, this acute viewing angle really hurts - just moving your chair from one part of the desk to another can expose it. Unless you're going with IPS displays, the portrait mode of a monitor is somewhat compromised. I still hate 16x9. Please give me back my 4:3.
- watmough 15y ago
  An HP ZR24w is less than $400. If you're looking at a screen for extended periods, then it's worth spending some cash. This particular monitor is also 1920x1200, which is a pretty good resolution, WUXGA I think, like the big Dell Precision I used to have.

protomyth 15y ago

you probably won't like some of the suggestions for 4K, one was 4096 x 2048 (2:1).

justincormack 15y ago
Possibly with anamorphic lenses though, like wide film.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Can you explain the need for anamorphic lenses?
  - miahi 15y ago
    If you watch the 2:1 display through an anamorphic lens you can see it stretched as it's a 4:3 one. Food for thought: can you create a Fresnel anamorphic lens?
bo1024 15y ago
Nope :). Because I really want around 18 inches of vertical height, and how will I fit a 3-foot-wide screen on my desk?? (Edit: Others have discussed the viewing angle issues with rotating a screen, but it is an option.)

rhizome 15y ago

For what it's worth, just last night I was dicking around on Newegg looking at laptops and found that a Panasonic Toughbook appears to support 1900x1200 at 15", which is ~1.5 aspect ratio (4:3 = 1.333; 16:9 = ~1.8). The relevant term you want to search for is "WUXGA".

jamesbritt 15y ago
WUXGA is 1920x1200
- rhizome 15y ago
  Noted!

lifeformed 15y ago

16:9 is awesome if you use a wide, vertical taskbar.

Raphael 15y ago
I also keep the taskbar vertical. The important thing if you use a mouse is to have it on a side that's not next to another monitor so the cursor stops at the edge.
keithpeter 15y ago
Ubuntu Unity. 1920 by 1080 on a no-name LCD LED monitor. Launcher on left set to 32px. Browser in right half, terminal/Gedit in left half (use the shift-alt arrow key shortcuts to semi-tile). Might consider a second 1920 by 1080 to get to 4 million pixels on the cheap

jjcm 15y ago

The monitors I work with are 20:11. Hard to find, but I enjoy them. Let's me tile two 1024 width windows side by side - good for doing cross browser comparisons. Ratio doesn't bother me on a monitor, I can always find some way to utilize it. I would appreciate a higher pixel density though.

Freestyler_3 15y ago

I have one 16:10 screen, and then a few years later I want to have two 16:10 monitors... but no luck finding one for a decent price. :( Now i Have one 16:10 and one 16:9 (I suggest not doing this because you will look at the differences every day)

sciurus 15y ago
Agreed. If you're going for two monitors, you should try to get the same model. Otherwise you'll spend a lot of time fiddling with color settings and still never get them to quite match.

Zak 15y ago

I'm a fellow 4:3 fan. I understand why width is more useful to some users than height, but I feel like it's a monoculture. Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.

jamesbritt 15y ago
Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter. A friend of mine said the term around his house for these HD displays is "short screens."
- justincormack 15y ago
  TV engineers used to call wide screen "fewer lines".
  - jamesbritt 15y ago
    I suppose if they reduce the height even more they can call it "ultra-wide".
    - Zak 15y ago
      Sony made (and may still make) a clamshell PC intended to fit in a coat pocket with a 1600x768 screen. I'm not sure how they marketed that aspect ratio.