> old monitor dies
> have used 16:10 monitors since 2005
> thinking maybe I should replace it with a ultrawide monitor
> no 16:10 ultrawide available, it's all 16:9 shit
When did the monitor industry get so corrupt, /g/? Why do people think that 16:9 is good for anything other than movies?
>>53568912
I know that feeling, anon. You could go buy used, pay a shitton for a 16:10 new monitor, or just give up and buy 16:9, sadly.
>>53568912
Its a meme and you are a retard. 16:10 and 16:9 is pretty much the same thing
>>53568934
If I buy a 16:9, how much do I have to drink to dull the pain?
>>53568912
why does it matter
high resolution is high resolution, you're not going to notice a few hundred pixels difference if you're using a decent window manager
>>53568983
>16:10 and 16:9 is pretty much the same thing
Uh huh...
BTW, you have to be 18+ to be here.
The 120 pixels matter when something has to run full screen at 1600x1200.
Fucking autocad viewports...
>>53568912
Dell U2415.
>16:10
>ultrawide
You know those ultrawides have their own shitty aspect ratios. I don't see how you can get an ultrawide of either aspect ratio, unless there's some sort of convention of "multiply the ratio by this other ratio that defines ultrawideness of the first ratio"
>>53568983
>>53568992
The Youtube generation, everyone.
>>53569002
Not ultrawide, but thanks for the effort.
>>53569111
What's the definition of ultrawide?
>tfw no square monitor
this thing would be a literal bliss for work
>>53569111
>The Youtube generation, everyone.
that's you...
>muh aspect ratio
do you realize an 8:5 monitor will never have more pixels if the vertical pixels are the same?
ie:
1440x900 (8:5) < 1600x900 (16:9)
16:9 monitors will always have more pixels per price since people who buy 8:5 monitors are complete retards who fall for memes and will overpay for them, sort of like audiophiles
>>53569109
>>53569117
It's actually 21:9. I'm mixing terms a bit here. Don't even know what an equivalent would be for 16:10, since no one has even made one yet.
>>53569194
And if the horizontal pixels are the same, then 16:10 wins.
1920:1200 > 1920:1080. The two most common resolutions in consumer monitors today.
The reason why 16:9 are cheaper is because they just puke out monitors from the same forms as they make TVs, and slapping whatever cheap glossy shit they can on top of it.
>>53569194
1920x1200 :o
>>53569257
16:9 are cheaper because they aren;t memes with an idiotic fanbase.
While you buy a 1920x1200 monitor, I could buy a 2560x1440 monitor for the same (or lower) price and higher quality, easily.
>>53569303
And that's one of my complaints, there's no reason why 16:10 monitors are so expensive, other than the manufacturers jewing hard. You'll get a cheaper monitor, but less resolution. And doing any kind of work on a 16:9 after getting used to 16:10 is just painful.
>>53569156
Back in the day I used to see a lot of smaller square monitors, mainly for server racks, shitty res, all VGA but still square. Why do they not produce these presently for high res shit? Wtf is up with the wide factor? I get it for movies, but for work? I guess it'd be strange walking around with a square laptop however rather than rectangular.
16:10 is good for small/low res screens, if we are talking about full blown dekstop monitors it really doesn't matter that much.
>>53568983
16:10 is is usable, 16:9 is not. It's cool if you're content with 16:9 but don't go trying to force people into that bullshit
>>53568992
>higher pixels is higher pixels
Fuck no.
>>53569430
Does too, 16:9 is ass, 16:10 is usable, 5:4 and 4:3 are mens' resolutions for people who get work done.
>>53569449
>Does too, 16:9 is ass, 16:10 is usable, 5:4 and 4:3 are mens' resolutions for people who get work done.
You are talking out of your ass. I had to work with low res 16:9 screens (768px, 900px) and its a pain in the ass.
But when we are talking about 1080 or even 1440/2160px screens you have plenty vertical space to not be bothered by the aspect ratio.
If I had the choice between 16:9 and 16:10 I'd go 16:10 all the way but the difference really is not that big as you make it seem. Get over yourself.
5:4 and 4:3 stopped being useful when 99% of people started working with multiple docs side by side.
Explain in non meme terms why 16:10 is desirable, my monitor is 16:10 but I don't see why it so superior
>>53569501
>But when we are talking about 1080 or even 1440/2160px screens you have plenty vertical space to not be bothered by the aspect ratio.
Maybe you're enough of a masochist to not mind but I can't stand it.
>>53569518
Vertical space is important, especially when working with large text files etc.
16:9 stopped being unusable when high (>=1080p) resolution got affordable though.
>>53569520
Maybe get your autism checked, its really not that bad.
>>53569563
It's painfully bad. I have no use for all those extra fucking pixels on the sides
>>53569563
>Vertical space is important, especially when working with large text files etc.
Wouldn't a dual monitor setup with one vertical monitor be even better if that is important
>>53569257
You sound really confused. 21:9 cannot be 16:10. It's the ratio of the width to the height.
>>53569518
> non meme terms
What does that even mean? This sounds like you're just going to dismiss every argument (more pixels, better for reading, working and everything that is not movies) as a "meme".
>>53569589
No, you misunderstand me. 21:9 is the "definition" of ultrawide. It's actually a ratio even better suited for movies than 16:9, and even worse for everything else. Some ultrawides tries to compensate by splitting the image in two, at that point you might as well just buy two monitors.
>>53569686
>What does that even mean?
I mean stupid shit like muh fibonacci and constanza posts. More vertical space for text is a valid argument
>>53569706
>muh fibonacci
Confirmed for dismissing facts as memes
>>53569686
>It's actually 21:9. I'm mixing terms a bit here. Don't even know what an equivalent would be for 16:10, since no one has even made one yet.
So you mean a 21:9 equivalent of 16:10, which makes it not 16:10 at all, but 21:9. What else do you mean by a 16:10 equivalent?
>>53569753
After reading your post again I get it now, what you mean is a 2560 x 1600 resolution monitor?
I know how you feel, my old 16:10 monitor died a few weeks ago.
>>53569790
Anon that's 16:10
>>53569810
Exactly what I mean, but read OP's post. He wants a 16:10 "ultrawide -> 21:9" monitor, which is a paradox.
>>53569837
I think what he's saying is he wants X:10 for an aspect ratio
16:9 :: 21:9
16:10 :: X:10
HE WANTS A 21:10 MONITOR ITS NOT THAT HARD GUYS
>>53569862
EXCEPT THAT'S WRONG YOU FUCKING DUMBASS
>>53569857
That means nothing since 16:9 is also 17.8:10, and 4:3 is also 13.3:10.
>>53569400
A lot of people just get a monitor that they can flip vertical.
>>53569928
Except it does mean something
Give up anon, just get a 1440p monitor on the the cheap and give up the 16:10 dreams.
>>53568912
The reason you used 1920×1200 was the
1200
Why not get a 3440×1440 monitor?
>>53569400
it is literally is more A E S T H E T I C
>>53569156
Why not rotate your 16:9?
I'm a C# programer and I have a 21:9 monitor for games n movies. And next to it I have a Dell 16:9 that I rotate horizontal for TV series and fighting games and rotate vertical for programing.
>>53570040
16:9 rotated is way too narrow. 8:5 works well.
8:5 isn't dead, it's just niche and not sold by brands that appeal to bottom feeders. Dell U2415 was released not too long ago and Ezio will always have something.
>>53570002
Every aspect ratio is X:10.
>>53570110
>U2415
But 2560x1600 is stupidly expensive and I don't think i've seen a 3840x2400 monitor anywhere.
>>53570137
You're just failing to comprehend
>>53568912
>16:10 ultrawide
>>53570150
Yes please enlighten me.
>>53570162
this. op is a fucking autistic
>>53568912
Look at the Dell U2412m and U2415 for good panels, all 16:10
