Will we ever see better aspect ratios like 3:2 getting adopted by the market instead of peddling 16:9 forever and ever?
I sure hope so
No. Markets grow horizontally, not vertically.
all of this is driven by normies, so instead maybe we'll see portrait monitors showing up because it makes it easier for them to consume their tiktoks and youtube shorts
>>108888762Normies are already buying laptops with 3:2 screens, so there's high chance that BenQ's 3:2 monitors will start shifting the market towards them.
>>108888790which laptops have 3:2 screens?
>>108888798macbooks and MS Surface laptops apparently, I think acer used to make them too but it's more likely the ones I remember were actually 16:10
ironically for more vertical space you want an ultrawide
>>108888790>there's high chance that BenQ's 3:2 monitors will start shifting the market towards them.Usecase for less screen? I own the 32 inch 16:9 version of the 28 inch 2:3 in the op post which is the same vertical height but wider.
Oh man, sometimes I feel like I am the only 3:2 lover and 16:9 hater.16:9 never made any sense for a computer, it's so terrible for any kind of work, terrible for webbrowsing, terrible for graphic works, terrible for music software... it just sucks!>>108888861>macbooksFor some weird stupid reason only entry level Macbooks do, Macbook Pros have 16:9, because... because.
>>108888921>less screenYou are comparing 32 inch vs 28 inch.3:2 is not less screen, it's more useful height and less useless width.
>>108888921>what is resolution>what is pixels per inch
>>108888877I still don't understand why curved ultrawide is so popular, you can only view them properly from one slotI have a flat ultrawide and I can use it at my desk as well as watch something from my bed.
>>108888661Just get a 32 inch monitor, center a window and maximize it vertically, but not horizontally.. Problem solved.
>>108889868retard
noob question but how do you know if you picked the right or wrong monitor? what's the first signs?
>>10888866116:10 for the win
>>108888661>better aspect ratios like 3:2 getting adopted by the market Best I can do is 21:9
>>108890614might just be the worst ratio I ever used desu
>>108888877Okay but now draw that same vertical line on a 16:9 TV...
Come home white man
>>108888661Why can't we just use 1:1 and embrace the added verticality?
>>108891853enjoy your 1024x768
>>108888921Given the same "inches", more squarey = bigger. What people call "wide" is actually a SHORT screen.
>>1088918782048x1536*
>>108891857Eizo makes 1:1 monitors, but they're pricey.
>>108890664I prefer 43:18 (3440x1440)
>>108888951>You are comparing 32 inch vs 28 inch.right, because larger than 28 inch 3:2 screens don't exist and larger than 28 inch 16:9 screens do exist.
>>108891911Saying eizo is pricey is like saying water is wet. You get what you pay for. I am still using an eizo LCD display made in 2002. Most other screens I've had barely last 10 years without crippling issues.
>>108893707>crippling issuesSuch as?
>>108893758Such as the monitor randomly turning off and then turning on again while I'm playing a video game. Makes it unusable.
>>108888661No, the market will adopt ultra-wide monitors instead.
>>108888888
As a drawfag I like it when screens are wide because it lets me stuff the UI on the sides of the screen while still leaving nice canvas spaceIf all the horizontal space was switched for vertical space I'd have to put the UI on the top and bottom and that would be strange and weird. Also there are no square pen tablets.
>>108895989Most of my works are in portrait so a more vertical monitor fits my workflow much better than awfully short 16:9 garbage.
>>108893769that sounds more like a gpu issue no?
>>108888940>Macbook Pros have 16:9, because... becauseI have mbp m4 and it’s 16:10 under notch and like 16:10.5 or something silly like that if you include the notch
>>108897197No, because it happens on literally every single GPU the monitor is connected to. Unless I exclusively own broken GPUs that work perfectly with only Eizo monitors.
>>108891891No, what you call "big" is actually a THIN screen.
>>108888661the human eye cannot see more than 1366x768. what more do you need?
>>108888661GIMME 1:1 YOU FUCKING CRETINS
>>108888940>Macbook Pros have 16:9, because... because.The Macbook Pro is almost 3:21728 / 1117 = ~1.54or 1.6 if you exclude the notchI don't know why Apple picked those exact dimensions but I suspect they targeted the physical form factor of the laptop first, then fit the screen to it, and that's how we got the weird aspect ratios.
>>108888921how fucking retarded are you?
>>108888742I giggled.
>>108891892>resolution only supported by less than 1% of all CRT monitors ever made
>>108900248And I own one.
>>108889974>consoomer has no argument
>>108888661we already are
>>108888861Love my dual 16:10 dells.
