2 ms·
> Vertical screens are fantastic Strong :+1: from me. I am typing on a 27" retina iMac with a second 27" Thunderbolt display on my right, in portrait mode than
by lproven 3y ago
> Vertical screens are fantastic
Strong :+1: from me. I am typing on a 27" retina iMac with a second 27" Thunderbolt display on my right, in portrait mode thanks to a SuperMac stand that was as expensive as a cheapo LCD in its own right.
But it's fantastic for reading long PDFs and other not-readily-resizable documents, for searching through my emails and so on. Much more use than a widescreen – whose adoption was driven, not for computers or software or ergonomics or anything, but by the commodities of the scale of production of TV screens.
- hakfoo 2y agoI always assumed that was the reason too, but it feels like there was really only a narrow window when there was a significant crossover between monitor panels and TV panels. Most all new TVs are 32" or larger, so that's not going to widely impact what 20-27" monitor panels can benefit from. Even when smaller LCD TVs were popular, they were often 720p or 1266x768 panels, but most monitors were 1080p. OTOH, maybe it was more of a second-order thing: people were primed from TV and movies to expect wide-format content, so monitor makers had to produce products that satisfied that; people don't like letterboxed/pillarboxed displays.
- lproven 2y agoDon't underestimate the effects of tradition. "We do things this way because we do things this way" is one of the strongest effects in technology. Secondly, I suspect, but do not know, that there are effects here of making big panels and then cutting smaller panels around the edge of the large one.