File: shopping.png (39 KB, 200x150)

39 KB PNG

One of our crappy 16 by 9 dell 720p monitors went out at my job, so I brought in my based 1280x1024 NEC monitor I got from goodwill for 10 dollars that was collecting dust in my basement. So I use it 40-50 hours a week.
On my home computer I use 16:9 1440p monitors but I usually orient my programs to be more square.
Really 16:9 is fine because computers these days are great for watching videos and that's the standard.

>>109390941
>16:9 should never have won...
Yes. 16:10 should have won

>>109390941
buy an ad

4:3 et a.l. seem far better for reading, but alas, I'm a younger who has only ever experienced 16:9.

>>109391052
resize your window retard

>>109391001
I still don't get the 16:10 shilling, only thing it'd make sense for is programs with side panels so maybe 3D modelling and Photoshop, but those are fairly specific and I don't think I've seen a single thread or post related to either of them on here, within the last year, and even if there was one there is significantly more 16:10 shills. What's so good about it?

>>109391933
They fit in nicely into the 16:9 dominant ecosystem. If you're dealing with something that HAS to be 16:9 like video, you just have pretty slim letterboxing. If 16:9 didn't become so dominant, I assume I wouldn't like 16:10 as much.

>>109390941
I fucking hate 16:9. It's just terrible for everything. 16:10 is barely better. Monitors should not be wider than 3:2.

oblivishit
shitblivion
obSTINKion

>>109392812
>/g/ - Video Games

>>109392812
sent that freak FLYING

File: 1785003405447509.gif (1.89 MB, 300x350)

1.89 MB GIF

>>109390941
I use both

>>109390941
I use a 4:5 second monitor and my main display is 16:10.

>>109391933
You get more space vertically, it makes a huge usability difference. Even something as mundane as browsing the web is much better on 16:10 compared to 16:9. I think it'd also be nicer to use in portrait than a 16:9, but I've never tried that.

>>109392871
I mean I used it before it just didn't feel all that different and if verticality matters that much you can just get a 4:3/5:4 monitor or you can flip a 16:9 by 90°and I get the argument for more square ratios but 16:10 just seems like a really shitty compromise it's not tall enough to change much but it's also no longer wide enough to tile two windows for multitasking

I gave up and just bought a big 4K 16:9 monitor and I run everything in windows instead of fullscreen.

>>109393025
>16:10 just seems like a really shitty compromise it's not tall enough to change much but it's also no longer wide enough to tile two windows for multitasking
So you're gay and retarded. A 16:10 monitor is the same width as a 16:9 monitor just with additional height. In the act of gaining you do not lose.

I have two 16:10 displays, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600; in neither circumstance do I lose width, there is no act of compression.

>>109390941
>16:9 should never have won...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripheral_vision

it's make sense to have wide screens because you can move your right eye far right and your left eye far left while both eyes have the same reach for up or down.
also because of phones and human hand.

File: Capture.png (88 KB, 1673x778)

88 KB PNG

>>109393414

>>109393514
The pixel width is identical; two windows fit exactly the same, the only difference is they're taller.
For the physical diagonal size to matter, you would have to suppose that all monitors are made with the same physical dimensions - which is not true, faggot.

i wish there were 1440p/4k 4:3 and 5:4 monitors that aren't CRTs.

>>109390941
>microsoft sidewinder keyboard
we need to go back...

>>109390941
I have two computers with a single monitor setup each with this aspect ratio and because I use them daily and they are already old they prone to break after 2 years and need to be replaced every time. Once in a while I think if I should rather buy one brand new monitor that lasts me 10 years or something but with the same aspect ratio because I love it so much.

just pick a 4/3 resolution then configure your monitor to just scan without scaling anything.

One for an SBC NAS, one as a side monitor for the small amount of remaining space on my desk. Everything else is a real 16:9 monitor because I'm not autistic.

>>109390941
Begging someone to make a new 120hz 2048x1536 or higher 4:3 monitor

>>109390941
>3:2
yes, its good
>4:3
>5:4
no, these are fucking ass

>>109393025
16:10 is the closest to the golden ratio of 1.62 and basically you're a faggot and suck dicks

yes primarily I use a 4:3 TFT display. I am not "larping" either, you can buy them for like $8 at Goodwill and they look great. I find myself staring at one side or the direct center of a widescreen display all the time. It's a fairly useless "innovation".

>>109390941
Yeah and I want cellphones to go back to be 16:9. But that won't be happening either

>>109393514
I hate to break it to you, but that screenshot shows 16:10 as the objectively superiour choice if your criteria is the size of the display.
Multiply width by height and you see that 24 inch 16:10 monitor is just bigger than a 16:9 monitor at 24 inches. It's bigger by quite a decent margin too.

>>109390941
I use two square windows side by side on a 21:9 which is like the modern version of that

>>109395642
What I was trying to get at is that it's narrower, not just taller. Frankly I couldn't care less what you people use I was just curious why it gets shilled so much and I still can't say that I get it
>>109395972
This is kind of why I don't get the point of 16:10. There's a point where a screen becomes wide enough that it can act as two square ones 16:10 lies at a point where it's just not tall enough to function as a single square screen and it's not wide enough to tile multiple windows to mimic two of them, the aspect ratio of two windows still becomes too tall even if the pixel width is the same as on a 16:9 screen but that's just my experience

File: Human-field-of-view-FOV-f(...).png (345 KB, 850x469)

345 KB PNG

>>109390941
16:9 won because humans are not cyclopean.

>>109396012
Yeah, it's a bit narrower, but what the fuck does that matter when it's noticeably bigger. You lose less than 2 cm total on the sides and gain more than 2 cm combined top and bottom. Your original argument was some asinine shit about not being able to put 2 programs side by side, which is complete nonsense. Even if it's 1.4 cm narrower, it has the same horizontal resolution. So not only can you fit 2 programs side by side these 2 programs now have more vertical space available.
You keep saying it's not wide enough but you're either not understanding anything or you can't conceptualize resolutions and physical dimensions at all. A 24 inch 1920x1080 screen is not ""wider"" than a 24 inch 1920x1200 screen. In theory it's physically 14mm wider, but the resolution is identical. If you have content that is in a 960 px wide and 1080 px high, then you can fit 2 instances of this content side by side on both screens. You just have free space left over top and bottom which you can use to make the windows bigger or on something else in 16:10 case.
If you have 960 px wide and 1200 px high content, you can fit 2 side by side on the 16:10 screen but you can't fit it at all on the 16:9 screen.

File: 646-6462381_cirno-is-fuck(...).png (16 KB, 860x605)

16 KB PNG

>>109396834
I get what you're saying, guy. I guess it's just the feeling of using it that doesn't sit right with me for some reason, but I concede, I'm retarded and I'll stop talking shit

>Do anons still use 4:3/5:4/3:2 displays?
Today no, but i will search for, i need new two displays to do my codes.

>>109390941
I used to have one, used it for watching lain and older 4:3 media at native resolution and playing TF2. Shit was cash

File: 1783446659815546.jpg (144 KB, 1320x1320)

144 KB JPG

Posting from 3:2 display, it's Thinkpad X12 G1 so I guess it doesn't count. kek

File: mf.jpg (34 KB, 600x612)

34 KB JPG

43:18

File: 1345979786788645.jpg (986 KB, 5312x2988)

986 KB JPG

>>109390941

>>109390941
No bc I’m not trans