>2016-1
>not using a square monitor
>1920x1920
>>51790820
How much more does it costs ?
>>51790820
Honestly it looks really odd after using wide screen for so long.
>>51790820
Isn't that shit over a thousand bucks? No thanks Eizo faggots. If it were reasonably priced, I'd certainly be interested in one though.
>>51790820
neck yourself to be honest family
>>51790839
Eizo EV2730Q-BK
about 1000$ or 1000€
>>51790858
cheapest offer in europe is about 855 EUR or 935 USD
to be honest i'd buy it if i had the money
>>51790820
Looks worse for work than a fucking 21:9
>>51790899
1920 vertical pixels family
4:3 is the best of both worlds no wonder that's what tube tv used our generation is retarded.
>>51790934
go to be grandpa we rule this world now
>>51790884
Yeah, no. I might be interested for more like $500. It's clearly not marketed at consumers.
>>51790934
You forgot there's 5:4, too.
>>51790820
that is actually pretty hot
Just turn your monitor vertically.Way better for word processing and web browsing.
>>51790917
>still using monitors with awful refresh rates
Do you hate your eyes or something?
1:1 can't fit as much computing in your eyeball
>>51790820
This would make sense if you had only one eye
>>51790820
16:9 is best for entertainment
4:3 is best for work
/thread
I dont want to make a thread just to ask this question, but are all displays compatible with macbook's or do I have to waste 2k for one of those thunderbolt display bullshits?
widescreen + portrait is working pretty well for me.
>>51790820
>2017-2
>not using 40' 4k
>>51791443
The iris and retina are round. You know the parts that does the actual seeing? Go get a round monitor retard.
>>51791490
That looks cool
>>51791473
You can use normal displays
>>51791473
Retina Macbook Pros have full size HDMI built in, as well as Mini Display Port (same connector as Thunderbolt but is used by many non Apple displays)
For the new "Macbook" you obviously need an adapter no matter what
>>51791407
>>51790820
16:10 is far superior
>>51791563
16:10 is a meme.
>shitty bars when consuming media
>nowhere near as practical as 1:1 for real work, or a 16:9 rotated 90 degrees on a stand
>>51791590
16:10 is the golden aspect ratio
>>51791590
No, 16:10 is objectively the best
16:9 is a joke for computer screens, peddled by manufacturers of shit consumer laptops so they can advertise them as having an "HD WIDESCREEN DISPLAY PLUS MEGA AWESOME"
>>51791638
>>51791641
>being an iKuck
>>51791699
What a convincing and logical argument, I must change my ways.
>>51791590
I prefer 5:4 and 4:3, but there are two things I prefer 16:10 for
>browsing with sidetabs
With everything set up the way it is I have about a 16:10 viewable area within my browser
>4:3 and 16:9 media when you only have one display
>>51791638
why is it called 16:10 and not 8:5?
>>51791590
New Apple is 16:10
>>51791443
Pretty much this.
We got away from the more square-ish aspect ratios because you're constantly forced into looking up and down or craning your neck in order to see the top or bottom of the screen. It's an ergonomic thing.
A 1:1 monitor makes it so much worse. They might have a use as ad space, or some other kind of signage, but it seems pretty terrible for personal computing.
>>51791760
To make it easier for retards to compare it to 16:9
>>51791801
so why isn't 4:3 called 16:12?
>>51791813
Because /g/tards pull a lot of shit out of their gaping assholes.
>>51791813
Because it's already known as 4:3
>>51791898
so why didn't they call it 8:5 when they made it
>>51791900
Because 4:3 and 8:5 aren't the same thing
>>51791900
Instill gahnoo
>>51791915
why didn't they call 16:10 8:5 when they made it
>>51791925
To make it easier for retards to compare it to 16:9
>>51791936
oh ok
thanks
I keep having the not online screen
We've already established that you suck at window management if you need to display more than one line of text at a time.
>>51792059
>one whole line
whoa, look at mr. i suck at management here
>>51790820
Cool! A monitor made for Instagram!
>>51791490
But did you know that humans have two eyes?
>>51791539
kek
>tfw no igzo tft 1-144hz freesync monitor
>>51790820
I think two widescreen monitors would be more efficient for me than one or even two of those square nightmares.
I care much more about horizontal space than vertical.
>>51793876
>>51793900
No, that pisses me off
>>51791407
>>51791539
>>51791443
21:9 confirmed for best aspect ratio
perfect for looking at globes
Gameboy Emulation has never been better,
dual squares
>>51790820
Top fucking kek.
>>51793960
You mean one wide.
Jesus fuck.
>>51793989
Two squares are more ergonomic because they stand at an angle
A wide one would have to be curved but then again it's less flexible.
Two squares are objectively the best.
If I had the money I'd get 2 right now.
>>51793989
>16:9 = 1:2
>>51791715
We're glad you agree
>>51794017
>implying I said that it is
It's pretty fucking close tho.
>>51790820
I use 16:10. I prefer it to 4:3 and 1:1
Just my opinion. I run it at enough resolution where its not a problem having 8 pages open at once.
Ultrawide, son.
It's ultra convenient, unlike that stupid square shit.
Bigger numbers are better.
1:1 is literally the worst you could get, whereas 21:9 is masterrace.
>>51794090
aren't they just 4k monitors with the top cut off?
>>51793989
>paying more money than you would for a big ass curved monitor
>having a giant bezel in the center of the screen
>>51794289
No you have 2560x1080 (you could say its 1440p with the too cutoff) and 3440x1440 wich is nothing like 4k in width or heigth
>>51794090
i'd get a 34somethingx1440 ultrawide if i had a job as a programmer and rotate it 90 degrees but other than that i don't think they're all that useful especially for media consumption
>>51790858
lol. ask mommy if she will increase your allowance, kiddie
3:2 is objectively the best ratio.
Get this 1:1 shit out of here.
>>51794657
>3:2
You mean 15:10?
>>51794765
No, I mean 18:12.
112:63 monitors are the best
>>51794445
That doesn't really work. Your eyes have a much wider field of view horizontally than vertically. If you pivot vertically any screen larger than 24" 16:9 you will need to tilt your head up and down, which is extremely annoying and uncomfortable.
>>51790820
I'd use one if I had the money. They're fucking expensive though.
what's the point, humans don't have a square field of vision
that's retarded
you're retarded
>>51793869
That's the most autistic thing I've ever seen
Nice meme but
not worth $1k desu
>>51790820
1996. Not using a square NCD16 X Terminal. 1024x1024 monochrome master race.
>>51790858
>being poor
>2015
ffs, how can you be poor in this day and age? It's current year.
Imagine a world where square monitors were the standard and rectangle monitors were rare and overly expensive.
>>51790820
A 4k display costs less and has more pixels
Ultrawide>16:9>4:3
>>51790840
This
16:9 is closest to the golden ratio
>>51790820
is this the next meme?
>>51790820
>taller than it is wide
>square
>>51794276
>autism
