Why haven't you upgraded to a square yet?
>>51892139
or dual squares
Why would I downgrade my horizontal screen space?
>>51892139
Because I'm not autistic.
because I'm not a minecraft character
because they cost over a thousand dollars, OP
if they were reasonably priced for home use, I would own one.
>>51892155
What do you use right now?
Note that the square is 68cm (27 inch)
I don't give a shit about aspect ratio. It's all the same when you just compare the amount of pixels on screen.
>>51892223
>It's all the same when you just compare the amount of pixels on screen.
What's the point? In what way is this better than 16:9, the ratio that all media and all programs are designed around?
it looks taller than it is wide
Apple doesn't make a 1:1 iMac
>>51892264
>In what way is this better than 16:9
Did you not watch his highly scientific test?
>>51892264
Text is easier to read in columns but the vertical length poses no limit to readability
Square are best if you work with text
>>51892139
I'd get one for multi-monitor use if they weren't so expensive.
It's also best for looking at globes
>>51892298
Same here desu but I have an automated eBay search to look for used ones
>>51892303
>>51892291
Those aren't squares faggot, they are upright rectangles, aka vertical monitors. Are you blind?
![-[Untitled]-1.0 (RGB color, 1 layer) 590x337 – GIMP_435.png](https://i.imgur.com/gxircK3.png "-[Untitled]-1.0 (RGB color, 1 layer) 590x337 – GIMP_435.png")
>>51892440
Wow.
>>51892440
Fucking stupid retard.
It's same width as it is height.
>>51892440
Go ahead and measure this image (>>51892291) faggot. The monitor has a 1920x1920 resolution. Square. It seems taller than it is wide because you intuitively expect monitors to be wider than they are tall, and a 1:1 aspect ratio defies this.
>>51892440
4:3 is the master race
>>51892520
FW900 is 16:10.
>>51892440
Square are rectangles
>>51892520
oops wrong picture
Is this an actual trending thing? Dont they realise that if you want larger desk space a 16:18 set up (two vertical 16:9 montiors) trumps it?
>>51892520
thats not 4:3 though
>>51892152
This aspect is totally lost on the commoner.
With 1:1 monitors, you can stack them, expand them in any way you need in any direction for your particular need.
Need a 2:3 monitor, 6 1:1s will do the trick
Need a 4:1 with a 2:1 on top, great. 1:1.
There's no limit to their stackability or usability.
>>51892303
Finally a screen I can look at all these globes with more often
>>51892488
No, retard, it's because human vision is horizontally wider (you have two eyes, you know) and your vision is an ellipse.
Perfect squares are actually vertically elongated rectangles when you look at them. It's not even an illusion thing, it's literally how you see them.
where are the elliptical monitors?
>>51892655
There have been attempts
>>51892583
>Buying 6 overpriced monitors to put them together for different aspect ratio in a fuck huge side with bezels everywhere other then buying the aspect ratio I want
This is perfect logic, I'll be sure to buy 144 monitors for a 16:9 set up
>>51892474
Autism
>>51892695
Well if you NEED that specific resolution, there's no other way to get it.
>>51892139
>square
>upgrade
Pick one.
>>51892718
what case would you need a specific resolution? Plus you acn just get black bars on a montior like displaying 4:3 on 16:9.
Seems like an extreme waste other wise
>>51892745
I don't know. That's not the point.
You shouldn't think in terms of what is currently is possible. You should think instead of what can be.
An resolution (in increments of 1920) in any ratio is possible.
Who gives a shit if it's got a specific purpose. You can have anything you want.
Fuckin' 97:47 ratio, fine, who gives a shit. Anything is possible.
I think you're too bound by what is practical and it's blinded you to what's possible.
it can display animu perfectly too
>>51892812
That picture. I need it
>>51892803
Just because something is possible, that doesn't make it worthy of your time or money.
Deal with it faggot.
I just left square, why would I want to go back? Are black bars fun now?
>>51892812
>dumb animeposter
>>51892803
well sure i guess, i know not to think in terms of what is possible, but for the consumer thiswont exactly change anything since media is pretty much all 16:9
for scientific purposes idk i cant see anything. It could be useful for simulators and work flow though. But still custom screens would probably be a better idea since you wouldnt have a bunch of black lines that stretch the image (border is it called in engligh?)
>>51892152
This monitor looks ergonomically unsound. You shouldn't have to look up to see the upper part of your monitor. Ideally the top bezel and your eyes should be connected with a horizontal line so you slightly tilt down when looking at the monitor.
I know this was bait, but too many people take it serious.
You know, I have 2 eyes, they are next to each other, my horizontal FOV is much much bigger than my vertical FOV. Why would I not use a monitor with an aspect ratio similar to my FOV? Square monitors are objectively worse. They will never be a meme.
not worth it desu
>>51892915
You can use 2 of them side by side
>>51892964
> oy vey, buy another one!
>>51892440
nice going dipshit
who cares about monitors when HMDs are a thing?
Most dank memes are square also
>>51892231
>ultrawide
>thinkpad
Is this a new meme
>also no numpad
>>51893096
I just got a promotion, thanks brony.
>>51893105
T450 Cinema Windows 8 Special Edition
16:10>4:3>16:9>1:1>21:9>any other meme shit
>>51892673
Oh...
Oh dear.
>>51892534
no squares have 4 equal side, and rectangles have 2 different side opposites at the same length
>>51893438
Squares are a special case of rectangles.
In Euclidean plane geometry, a rectangle is any quadrilateral with four right angles. It can also be defined as an equiangular quadrilateral, since equiangular means that all of its angles are equal (360°/4 = 90°). It can also be defined as a parallelogram containing a right angle.
>>51893438
>rectangles have 2 different side opposites at the same length
A rectangle is a polygon with four angles m80
>>51893468
4 right angles, actually
>>51893463
>>51893438
>>51893468
A non-square rectangle is called OBLONG.
>>51893494
Oh yeah, my bad.
>>51892139
what's even the point?
>side-by-side windows are obnoxiously elongated and cut off compared to wider formats
>portrait 4:3 actually has the dimensions of real paper
>even shittier support in le videogames
>>51892139
Check 'em
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiFW0h-flFU
>>51893188
3:2 >>>>>> rest
>>51892139
because i love my neck not sore
>american education
>>51892139
what do you think this is faggot? 1998?
>>51892139
source for this video? this is relaxing to watch.
STOP TOUCHING THE SCREEN
>>51892303
>round Earth
>>51892139
That's pretty cool actually.
Currently on a dual 2560x1440 setup.
Primary display for gaming, secondary for desktop use.
Always felt like I lacked vertical space with that setup, while horizontal space is abundant. Considered upgrading the secondary display to a 30" 4k next year, but a 1:1 display looks like a great option too.
>>51892139
Macfags jesus christ. Why the fuck is he moving those rectangles around it?
>>51892139
I would, i fucking would.
>>51892139
Looks like something for developers desu
>>51892918
maximum cinematic feel
>>51894317
>server cpu
lol
>>51892673
do want
The only thing extra width is good for is watching movies/shows. If you're just browsing the internet it's next to useless, webpages need extra height, not width. And if you're coding you're just going to split the screen so it's w/e.
>>51892166
Underrated comment
>>51892152
>or dual squares
Or, you know, a 21:9 with no retarded bezel in the middle. You guys are so autistic sometimes.
>>51892155
You mean your ratio, right? The squares are basically your wide-screen monitors but with added topside pixels. You only gain space but the ratio switches.
I was running a couple, albeit 1024p old shit mostly to try out eyefinity vs softTH. They did occasionally come in handy on the desktop, but even then I only really needed one. On their own I would find them completely shit, at least I can run two Windows side by side and get some use out of them on my 16:9
I've gone back to single monitor for a while as I wasn't simracing enough to warrant the desk space and power usage.
The only advantage these have over UHD/4K monitors is if you're limited on horizontal space, but even then you could put one in portrait for 2160*3840/4096 for a bit more horizontal resolution and an even greater vertical resolution.
I suppose there could be some very niche application where you're limited in both horizontal and vertical work space.
>>51894360
>16 threads
how cute. try 24 on for size.
>>51894862
Only that you'll end up with like half the total pixel count.
>>51892157
KEK
>>51892152
You can just get a 40 inch 4k for 1/10th the price.
>>51892440
shut the fuck up
>>51892139
because i haven't found one i can use in portait mode
>>51892812
Like anyone has $120,000 to throw away on a monitor. You could almost buy a house for that.
>>51898484
That's yewn you dumb fuk
>>51892291
>Text is easier to read in columns
Yes, which is exactly why we use widescreen. So we can put 2 windows side by side to compare things etc.
Arranged multiple windows on a square monitor is a pain in the ass. If you only ever have one window open at a time, you are not doing real work.
I thought I was on /g/, what happened?
>>51894350
>The black borders on the top and bottom of your favourite movies are greatly enhanced to provide the post-cinematic experience you deserve.
>Every console user buys one immediately.
>>51898888
>>51899057
>>51899057
>>51899072
>>51899089
This is /g/. Nobody cares
>>51892139
That actually looks like shit.
What's the fucking point of square? If you could choose between a square monitor or a wide screen monitor that had the same height and vertical resolution, why wouldn't you pick the widescreen one ever? And the square monitor is more expensive too.
>>51899142
>choose between a square monitor or a wide screen monitor that had the same height and vertical resolution
Think about how you've framed this.
>>51899207
Okay. A square monitor with a 1080x1080 resolution, or a wide screen monitor with 1920x1080 resolution, same dpi.
Happy autist? Still doesn't change the answer.
>>51899281
Let's choose between a square monitor with a 1920x1920 resolution, or a wide screen monitor with a 1920x1080 resolution, same dpi.
>>51899372
Not who you're replying to, but that would be a valid situation if the square monitor didn't cost so much that you could get a decent UHD/4K monitor for the same price.
>>51899372
I'd pick the 3413x1920 widescreen monitor, same dpi, same vertical height as the square monitor.
>>51899468
Yes, the price really trumps all other considerations.
>>51892715
>gets exposed for autistic comment
>y-your Autistic
excellent comeback faggot
Because I already have a vertical monitor for my docs.
I doubt any of these NEETs have one though since all they care about is gayming and shitposting on unbalanced ratios.
>>51894189
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZJVb_JxX4Y
>>51894098
>what do you think this is faggot? 1998?
I don't think there were square monitors in 1998, only 4:3 and 5:4.
>>51892231
what is this shit? it doesn't even have a fucking numpad
Holy shit you people are retarded.
Owning one of these is like sitting in the front row of a movie theater, there is a reason people don't do it.
>>51892823
It's in yen jackass
>>51893188
Why is it 21:9 instead of 7:3 ?
>>51902633
Easier to compare to 16:9 and 12:9
>>51892139
I have more than one eye so a square is not ideal to work with
>>51902670
You can buy 2 or 3 squares
>>51892918
Movies should be watched on a TV (16:9).
Work should be done on a monitor (4:3).
>tfw 4:3/1280x1024
It gets a bit awkward when multitasking a bunch of programs open, but still no reason not to use anything else
>>51902727
Oh wait, 5:4 my bad
>>51892139
Seems awkward to use at that size
Ergonomically your eyes should be level with the top of your monitor, this will force you to stare upwards unless you are a giraffe
A vertical 16:10 is already pretty annoying at the top
>>51892673
>YFW SURROUND PORN
>>51902633
idk. why is it called 16:10 and not 8:5?
>>51902806
Easier to compare to 16:9
I loved my 5:4 19" LCD, it's a shame I fell for the widescreen meme and sold that beauty.
