16:10 is back!

GotNoRice

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jul 11, 2001
Messages
10,133
Silly article with a click-bait sensationalist headline, which the author quickly walks back in the actual article by admitting that 16:9 will likely remain the primary standard for the foreseeable future.

And the article is primarily about laptops. I guess vertical height using 16:9 is a problem when you are using a laptop with a 14" screen, but with a 27"+ desktop LCD, not so much...

I'd argue that 21:9 monitors are more popular at the moment than the oddball resolutions the author fawns over such as 3:2. Maybe I can get my crusty old 4:3 LCDs out of the closet and sell them, as tall skinny monitors are apparently starting to attract the hipster crowd?
 

Valnar

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
3,325
What's in the marketplace is irrelevant, because that could easily be the opposite. So you believe, at a low resolution, that 1368x768 is superior to 1280x800? What would anyone need with that horizontal resolution at the expense of vertical?
 

Sancus

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Jun 1, 2013
Messages
1,043
This is silly, 16:10 laptops never went anywhere, MacBooks have always had that aspect ratio. And there have been various PC options with the same, I bought a 16:10 xps13 2in1 in 2019. There is even the 3:2 Microsoft Surface lineup.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,045
And the article is primarily about laptops. I guess vertical height using 16:9 is a problem when you are using a laptop with a 14" screen, but with a 27"+ desktop LCD, not so much...

I can confirm that its still a problem for all sub-4K 16:9 monitors. 1920x1080, 2560x1440 both suck for getting work done. At 3840x2160 its not really a problem given the pixel count. As long as you aren't dealing with massive font scaling which distorts the proportions of most application windows. Or a lot of them anyway.
 

madpistol

Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
521
I hate to break it to everyone, but if anything, aspect ratios are getting wider. We've seen a trend on computer monitors to normalize ultrawide (21:9) and super ultrawide (32:9). This has been compounded by phones which have now stretched beyond the 16:9 aspect ratio as well.

Admittedly, laptops don't work well with anything beyond 16:9, and in fact, they seem to work better at 16:10 or and even less wide aspect ratio. Outside of laptops and tablets, though, this is not the trend.
 

Dan_D

Extremely [H]
Joined
Feb 9, 2002
Messages
58,045
I hate to break it to everyone, but if anything, aspect ratios are getting wider. We've seen a trend on computer monitors to normalize ultrawide (21:9) and super ultrawide (32:9). This has been compounded by phones which have now stretched beyond the 16:9 aspect ratio as well.

Admittedly, laptops don't work well with anything beyond 16:9, and in fact, they seem to work better at 16:10 or and even less wide aspect ratio. Outside of laptops and tablets, though, this is not the trend.

And I would absolutely agree with that.
 

Luke M

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 20, 2016
Messages
465
This has been compounded by phones which have now stretched beyond the 16:9 aspect ratio as well.

Phones are normally used 'portrait', so it's actually the opposite - they are getting narrower, not wider.
 
Joined
Jan 23, 2021
Messages
4
I always preferred 16:10 over 16:9; it makes a huge difference. And I personally dislike using 16:9 or 16:10 monitors as a secondary/tertiary displays. The proportions looks awful in both landscape and portrait mode, strictly from a aesthetics perspective. I've been using two 4:3 20" LCDs at 1600 x 1200 on either side of my primary display for ages... and love it. Sorry for getting off topic... but yes, 16:10 is King >.>
 

Valnar

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 3, 2001
Messages
3,325
I always preferred 16:10 over 16:9; it makes a huge difference. And I personally dislike using 16:9 or 16:10 monitors as a secondary/tertiary displays. The proportions looks awful in both landscape and portrait mode, strictly from a aesthetics perspective. I've been using two 4:3 20" LCDs at 1600 x 1200 on either side of my primary display for ages... and love it. Sorry for getting off topic... but yes, 16:10 is King >.>

Lemme guess, the HP LP2065? Great monitors.
 

sethk

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
1,920
Hardly new - a lot of the productivity laptops / 2-in-1 devices have been moving to 16:10 or taller for a while now. I have a Samsung from 2016 with a taller than 16:10 ratio. The Surface Pro and laptop are of that ilk, as is the curent XPS 13, and many, many others.
The smaller the screen (like a laptop) the more beneficial this is. On a larger panel (like 32"+) I think even 16:9 it is "tall enough" despite the aspect ratio, as the real need is for sufficient vertical real estate as documents and web pages are really scrolled only up and down. On ultrawides, below 34" and 1440p I think it's a bad tradeoff (IMHO) which is why I'm glad to see most ultrawides we hear about are getting bigger and >=1440p. Small ultrawides are a really dumb idea.
 

DanNeely

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 26, 2005
Messages
3,873
Lemme guess, the HP LP2065? Great monitors.
The pair flanking my 32" 4k, are are NEC 2090s I got as refurbs 13 or 14 years ago. I've had on of the HPs for years as a spare, last spring it moved from my KVM to my WFH setup (I left my 1920x1080 secondary screen in the office).

I really wish I could get a replacement for them though; after 15ish years all 3 have had their backlights decline to the point I've had to turn them up to 100% and they're still dimmer than my main screens.

The closest available options are 22.5" 1920x1200's which would keep the 100DPI level, but be almost 3 inches taller than my main display 🤢, or 23.8" 1440p ones which have the worst of all possible worlds 125dpi level (because 5:4 DPI scaling for legacy apps looks awful) and would be almost 5" taller. 🤮 Hypothetical 20-22" 4k displays would at least avoid most of the DPI issues by being high enough to not be noticable; but I'd still have to choose between way taller than my main screen and really narrow. 😬
 
Top