4 ms·
It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution. Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is gre
by kunai 13y ago
It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution.
Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is great for television. But, when you read a book, I doubt you read it horizontally.
So, if we do a lot of text manipulation with our computers, why not use a taller aspect ratio, like 3:2 or 4:3?
It makes no sense why this display still has less resolution than some ThinkCentre monitors from the early 00's. It makes no sense why there's still that crap 1366x768 being sold now.
We went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (fewer vertical pixels), from 1440x900 to 1600x900 (same vertical), from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 (far fewer vertical pixels), from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 (fewer), from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 (far fewer).
You could keep the vertical resolutions the same, and simply increase the width, but that would be more expensive to produce, and for the same cost, you'd get a more proportional 8:5 display, so why would you bother?
It's an extremely sad, sad, thing.
- tfe 13y agoI think it's the best of both worlds. If I can have four files open side-by-side and see a reasonable slice of each, I think that's a win.
- kunai 13y agoBut you can do that with 8:5, plus get the same vertical screen height as the 16:9 display. You can still use xmonad/dwm/whathaveyou like you want; you'll just have more vertical height per slice.
- skymt 13y agoMany desktop monitors can be rotated 90 degrees, effectively giving you a 9:16 ratio.
- kunai 13y agoHorizontal resolution is important as well. 1080 pixels of horizontal resolution is far too little. 1440 is the same as my MacBook's Air's horizontal res, which is kind of ridiculous when I'm paying in excess of $1000 for a monitor. Again, 8:5 ratios give you the same horizontal res (I don't know why this is such a difficult concept to grasp for some people) with more vertical resolution, in landscape mode.
- cma 13y agoEarlier you claimed book pages were the ideal ratio. 9x16 is a lot closer than either 8x5 or 5x8.
- kunai 13y agoYes, it would be, but then again -- computers are dynamic. We manipulate text around on screen, not just read it like we do in a book. Sufficient horizontal space is required for that.
- rsync 13y agoI disagree with a few points here... First off, consumer offerings, like TVs, and perhaps laptops, are all at 16:9, sure, but almost any decent computer monitor (from Dell, HP, Apple, etc.) are 16:10. Even if I'm off base, 16:10 is certainly not hard to find. Second, while I agree that computing activities lend themselves well to vertical orientation, like you suggest, they lend themselves even more to multi displays and multi tasking. So the question is do you really want 2 or 4 or 8 vertical displays, with a physical seam between each of them, or do you want 1 or 2 or 3 horizontal displays, all split in two with your window manager, and with fewer physical seams ? I organize my workspaces vertically, and I have 3x 16:10 monitors split into (roughly) 6 vertical workspaces. I only have two physical seams. If monitors were not horizontal, I would have 6 displays with 5 vertical seams. So if you're working on a laptop, or have just one screen, I feel your pain. But big computer monitors are better off horizontal (and in threes :)
- kunai 13y agoI'm working on a laptop right now, which is part of the reason for my animosity towards 16:9. 16:10 displays exist, yes, but they're both expensive and limited in range. I can no longer find a decent 22" 16:10 monitor; they're all 16:9. The only good monitor that's left is the 30" Dell Ultrasharp, which IS 16:10, but it's $1299, which is godly expensive.
- dman 13y agoThere are many 24 inch 16:10 displays. The dell u2412m, hp has their zr24w. You can get these between 300 - 500.