3 ms·
Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
by hnbear 2y ago
Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- refulgentis 2y agoRight on my cusp, I still remember salivating for one of those straight from the Jetsons 4:3 LCDs (1997? 9? Only 9/11, so I may have been seeing them late / out of context). First 16:9 was probably 2006...got the first ever MacBook Pro as my graduation gift It informed some conception I had of the iPad as a platonic ideal (first 4:3 monitor in years)
- 6th 2y agoI use my Samsung SyncMaster 245B as my daily driver - it's almost old enough to drive!
- tivert 2y ago> Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9. They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously. I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]). [1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a-thinner-bezel-144hz-ips-screen-and-improved-cooling/ https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9MF-E2US583SH/dp/B0C8W4N4TM https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...