16:9 vs 16:10

[Oled]

$500 you say? That's funny, because over on NewEgg, as of the time of this post, they're actually selling brand new, non-refurbed 1920x1200 monitors for less than $300.00.

And then you should know that they sell 1920x1080 monitors at newegg for less than $150. As I have said. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

 

[garbagemule]

The studies that have been shown in this thread show that amount of pixels and multiple monitors increase efficiency. Nothing more. Nothing less. Vertical vs horizontal space are not even mentioned in the studies.

You didn't read the studies, so you wouldn't know. You've never done any work on your computer, so you wouldn't know. I'm sorry, but I can keep repeating this over and over until you get it. You have no knowledge of how valuable the extra vertical pixels are to people who use their computer for purposes other than gaming, so stop pretending. Scientific analysis shows that extra vertical space = better efficiency and higher productivity. You lose.

Your $500 16:10 vs $250 16:9 comparisons are totally unintresting. Especially when discussing efficiency. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9. Therefor based on the facts posted in this thread it is far more efficient to buy 16:9 and not 16:10.

No matter what budget you have, 16:9 will never provide as many pixels as same-quality 16:10. Your comparisons are ludicrous, and you know it. You just can't face facts I'm sorry, Oled, but you have no case. I know you want so badly for 16:9 to be the better option for everyone, but it just isn't. No everyone uses their computer solely for playing video games. Some of us actually benefit from having 65 lines of code instead of just 50 visible on the screen at any time. Your argumentation is flawed and irrational, your claims are insane and hold no water when challenged with scientific analysis. Why do you keep kidding yourself?

 

[garbagemule]

And then you should know that they sell 1920x1080 monitors at newegg for less than $150. As I have said. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

It doesn't matter if I buy a $150 16:9 or a $300 16:10, I will still have fewer pixels. Even if I buy two 16:9 monitors, I will still not get any more of the vertical space that is so valuable to me and anyone else who uses their computer for work-related purposes.

Go get a job in which you have to actually use a computer. You'll soon realize how ridiculous you seem to the rest of us

 

[nick8571]

I

Go get a job in which you have to actually use a computer. You'll soon realize how ridiculous you seem to the rest of us

It's funny, I haven't (until now) felt any need to add any member here to my ignore list, and I didn't know how to do it. I googled for "hardforum add user ignore list", and the first hit that came up was "User CP->Edit Ignore List->Add a Member to your Ignore List... [Oled] Ok Save Changes Refresh Page Now that the Signal to Noise ratio has improved, ..."

 

[garbagemule]

Haha! Well, I keep wondering why a member of 4chan suddenly finds an interest in [H]ard|Forum, because I seriously can't think of any other troll cave he could have come from >_>

 

[Oled]

It doesn't matter if I buy a $150 16:9 or a $300 16:10, I will still have fewer pixels.

If the budget is $300 you buy two 1920x1080 monitors and as we know that two 1920x1080 monitors are more efficient than a 1920x1200.

As I have said. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

 

[Shalafi]

I have been looking at monitors because it's likely that I want to buy a new monitor soon, possibly within the next month or 2, and I am looking at 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. The only monitors I have owned were a 1680x1050 monitor and a 1920x1200 display on my laptop.

I really really dig the 1920x1200 display on my laptop and find it hard to go back down to a smaller resolution.

However, I don't notice that much difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1080. I do like the extra width of the screen you get with a 16:10 resolution.

I'm kind of leaning towards paying more for the 16:10 resolution even though it costs roughly 40 percent more than the 16:9 option.

I don't like the idea of multiple monitors, I would rather have one fully functional monitor. If I ever bought an extra monitor, it would more than likely be for a backup. I have no interest in Eyeinfinity untill it becomes standard. It really hasn't gotten that much use in the mainstream.

 

[garbagemule]

And as I have said, that's bullshit. It doesn't matter how many 1920x1080 monitors you give me for the price of one 1920x1200, I'll still be missing pixels in the vertical direction. Also, we don't know that two 1920x1080 monitors are more efficient than one 1920x1200 monitor - not at all. There is no proof of this ANYWHERE. Go back and read the studies you keep posting, and you won't find a single claim of those lines.

We know that 2x 1920x1080 > 1x 1920x1080, and the same with 1920x1200. Saying that 2x 1920x1080 > 1920x1200 just proves you have absolutely no idea about the value of vertical space. And as I have also said, you have no case

@Fail: If you know that the added vertical space is useful, and if you use your computer primarily for work, you probably also know that it's worth spending a little extra on something that will increase your efficiency, and having it last for (hopefully) many years. I made the mistake of buying a 16:9 monitor when I would have been better off with a 16:10, and now it's a choice between squinting my eyes to see the text, or having less lines of code visible on the screen at any time.

 

[Oled]

@garbagemule

This is the hard forum. Could you please once show some facts.

We know from studies that I have posted in this thread that more pixels is good for efficiency and that multiple monitors are good for efficiency.

So yes. Studies indicates that it is more efficient with two 1920x1080 monitors than a 1920x1200 monitor.

We also must have in mind that for most budgets the alternatives are.

1440 x 900 or 1600 x 900
1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080

 

[Mabu]

If the budget is $300 you buy two 1920x1080 monitors and as we know that two 1920x1080 monitors are more efficient than a 1920x1200.

As I have said. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

You're making the assumption that 2 monitors are ideal (or even feasible) for everyone's uses.

 

[Shalafi]

You're making the assumption that 2 monitors are ideal (or even feasible) for everyone's uses.

And they are not, or everybody would have 2 monitors.

 

[Oled]

You're making the assumption that 2 monitors are ideal (or even feasible) for everyone's uses.

We discussed efficiency and studies have showed that multiple monitors are good for efficiency.

If we talk about personal taste thats a totally different story. Some people prefer 15 inch 4:3 monitors. Others prefer three 27 inch monitors. Obviously some will prefer a single 1920x1200 monitor just as some people prefer a single 1920x1080 monitor while another person prefer six different monitors.

Personal taste is not much to argue about.

 

[garbagemule]

@garbagemule

This is the hard forum. Could you please once show some facts.

You're the one with the doubtful claims and something to prove. I have proved everything I have said so far - you've proved nothing but the fact that you're a troll.

We know from studies that I have posted in this thread that more pixels is good for efficiency and that multiple monitors are good for efficiency.

And by that exact logic, 1920x1200 > 1920x1080. It's funny how you've completely given up on proving that 1920x1080 > 1920x1200, and have now moved on to using the dual monitor argument, which still holds no water because two 1920x1080 monitors simply means 2x the lack of 120 vertical resolution. Hah...

So yes. Studies indicates that it is more efficient with two 1920x1080 monitors than a 1920x1200 monitor.

No studies indicate this. Show me the evidence or stop making up stuff to fit your arguments.

We also must have in mind that for most budgets the alternatives are.

1440 x 900 or 1600 x 900
1680 x 1050 or 1920 x 1080

We must also keep in mind that your comparisons are tailored to your 16:9-fanboyism. The choice is never 1680x1050 vs. 1920x1080. It's 1920x1200 vs. 1920x1080, and the better option is always 1920x1200 if people use the monitor for anything outside of gaming.

Could you stop repeating yourself? Please?

 

[Oled]

Once again you deny facts.

So you assume that the usual budget for a monitor is $300 or more?
Get real. Anyone could just look at the sales and figure out that you dont have a clue what you are talking about. The absolute majority of all sold monitors are cheaper than that which also is a reason why 1920x1200 resolution monitors are so rare. As I have shown earlier both 1440x900 and 1680x1050 are more common 16:10 resolutions than 1920x1200.

 

[Oled]

No studies indicate this. Show me the evidence or stop making up stuff to fit your arguments.

Once again. Here is evidence. Stop denying facts!

"A University of Utah and ATI Technologies survey of 108 university & non university personnel using Dual Screen monitors reported increases of productivity with 33% fewer errors, 16% faster edits, 6% quicker access to tasks, as well as usability benefits of 45% easier task tracking, 32% faster performance and 24% more comfortable to use than single monitor set ups. Production of work was of a better quality, performed faster and with fewer errors. Task focus of the user along with their speed and ease of learning were also increased."

"On the whole, viewpoints from professionals in the business of promoting and evaluating productivity through hardware and work habits are recommending the dual monitor option as having more verifiable productivity gains than larger screens."
http://www.pulseit.co.nz/_blog/Comp...e_Monitor_vs_Dual_Monitors_vs_larger_Screens/

 

[garbagemule]

And again, your links turn around and bite you in the ass

"Although it’s advantageous to having more space to work, it will help some more than others depending on what they are working on. Larger screens could also have positive health benefits for workers such as less eye squinting."

http://www.pulseit.co.nz/_blog/Computer_Services_Auckland_Blog_-_Pulse_IT_Blog/post/Efficiency_in_the_work_place_-_Single_Monitor_vs_Dual_Monitors_vs_larger_Screens/

Using your logic, Oled, I can conclude from this single quote, that 16:10 > 16:9, because it means less eye squinting. I'd also like to point out the following quote:

"During 2009 we went through our entire organisation at Pulse ensuring that everyone had at a minimum dual screen monitors and preferably with large 22" wide screen monitors."

This is from 2009, and you have made it clear in earlier posts that anything from before 2011 is invalid. Furthermore, they are discussing 22" monitors, not 23-27" which is what the current debate is on. You won't find any modern 22" 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 to fit your argument. Thanks for playing, but you lose again

I'd like to say, also, that you're (as always) warping these quotes to fit your needs exactly. It says nowhere in that article that 16:9 is the better option. In fact, if anything, it talks about 17-19" monitors. There are no modern 17-19" widescreen consumer monitors (not of any mentionable popularity anyway), and so the debate must be on 2x 17-19" monitors with an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 vs. 1x 22" monitor with an aspect ratio of, well, at that time, it was probably 16:10.

 

[Oled]

larger means 30 inch in that article. As I see it the only time 16:10 is more efficient are for those who need a really big screen cause then 2560x1600 is the only alternative.

It says nowhere in that article that 16:9 is the better option.

As I have said earlier on 16:9 gets more efficient because you get more pixels for the money, not because it is 16:9.

If you could buy two 1440x900 monitors for the same price as one 1600x900 monitor then 16:10 would be more efficient but the prices are not like that.

 

[garbagemule]

1920x1200 > 1920x1080. I get more pixels buying the 16:10 monitor than I do if I buy the 16:9 monitor. You are making no sense. With 2560x1600 I also get more pixels than 2560x1440. What's more important, I get VALUABLE pixels. Pixels that will increase the amount of lines of code on my screen, pixels that will show me more of a website. Pixels that increase my productivity.

1440x900 and 1600x900 are completely irrelevant. Show me one thread from 2011 or even 2010 of a person asking if he should get a 1440x900 or a 1600x900 monitor for his computer. Stop talking crap, and start making sense.

Also, if you aren't going to "continue debating this", then why are you?

 

[Oled]

I get more pixels buying the 16:10 monitor than I do if I buy the 16:9 monitor.

Yes, but you get even more pixels if you buy 2560x1440.

 

[garbagemule]

But you get more pixels if you buy 2560x1600. Uh oh, that's the highest resolution of modern widescreen monitors. Looks like you STILL don't have a case.

 

[jayx9]

Oled is probably confusing FOV in games and number of pixels... which is why he thinks its better. With 16:9 you get a larger FOV in games, but you still have less pixels than the 16:10 monitor.

The point Oled isnt understanding that is there is more pixels on a 16:10 monitor. period. Once youre done gaming on a 16:9 monitor youre still stuck with less pixels. Where as in a 16:10 monitor you can scale down to 16:9 and have the same FOV, but when youre done gaming you have more pixels on your desktop for real work than a 16:9 monitor.

 

[Crosshairs]

Oled & garbagemule

can you guys just agree to disagree?
4 pages of arguing and no end in sight.....

 

[Oled]

The point Oled isnt understanding that is there is more pixels on a 16:10 monitor. period.

You dont know what aspect ratio means. It has nothing to do with amount of pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

So 1600x900 is a lower resolution than 1440x900?
So 2560x1440 is a lower resolution than 1920x1200?

 

[elvn]

What I've been saying all along is that the 16:9 vs 16:10 aspect ratio is not as important in multi monitor setups and I'm still not convinced otherwise.
..
I suggested adding one or more portrait mode monitors for documents and to help in authoring... including coding and graphics/video authoring environments that use toolboxes and other graphic elements, preview windows, etc. and to help with multitasking.
http://www.thesilvermethod.com/default.aspx?Id=InDefenseofPortraitMode

One of the nice new features of VS 2010 is that it supports tearing off toolbars and code windows and positioning them outside of visual studio. In the screens above you can see that I have taken the tools window and moved it off to the left monitor - giving me enough width to see a full line of code. Without a second monitor things are just too narrow for this to be effective (unless you are a fan of the auto-hide features which I am not). Being able to see a huge vertical column of code definately reduces the aggravation of having to constantly scroll. I also like how much vertical room it leaves for the solution explorer, which leads to less expanding/collapsing of the tree to get to your files.

..
Look at how much more "productive" multiple monitors were back in '02 even (I think they are 1280x1024 ~ 5:4 ratio)

..
..
PLP mode helps adding a lot more space for authoring (graphics, video, sound, web, whatever) too.. let alone three full size monitors 16:9 or 16:10., and the possibility of using mismatched resolutions for larger side monitor heights (ie. 1920 high portrait mode on each side of a main landscape monitor -- it ends up looking like "ears" on each side of the main monitor, like the first VS pic would show if it had a matching portrait mode monitor on the left side of the main)

,,
,,
.. I'm not promoting 16:9 over 16:10, I'm just saying in multi-monitor environments it doesn't matter much, especially not to me anymore - and especially at the 2560x1440 16:9 rez that I'm at now, in 3 monitor PLP,. However I would also be fine with 3x 1080p, either alone or added to my existing 3 panel PLP setup.
..
... Meanwhile.. how about 1920x3240 X 5760x1080

---not mine -- found somewhere on the internetz, I'd actually like a setup similar to that someday minus the top monitor.
,,
,,

 

[jayx9]

You dont know what aspect ratio means. It has nothing to do with amount of pixels.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

So 1600x900 is a lower resolution than 1440x900?
So 2560x1440 is a lower resolution than 1920x1200?

Why are you comparing such different resolutions.

Proper comparisons would be:

1600x900(16:9) and 1680x1050(16:10)

and

1920x1080(16:9) and 1920x1200(16:10).

As Ive said, 16:9 has a wider FOV in games. But if you compare monitors in the same range such as 1920x1080 to 1920x1200 16:10 always has more pixels(not FOV). The difference is you have a choice on the 16:10 monitor where as you dont on a 16:9. You can scale down a 1920x1200 monitor and have it display the same FOV as a 1920x1080 monitor. But when youre done gaming on the 1920x1080, you have less pixels and less desktop viewing space than the 1920x1200.

 

[garbagemule]

Fat knees.

 

[Oled]

Why are you comparing such different resolutions.

I just want to point out that all different resolutions are different resolutions.

What do you mean "same range"?
And why should these be more comparable than others?
Isnt it more relevant to base the comparison on price?
1920x1200 is far more expensive while 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 cost the same

 

[Shalafi]

I just want to point out that all different resolutions are different resolutions.


What do you mean "same range"?
And why should these be more comparable than others?
Isnt it more relevant to base the comparison on price?
1920x1200 is far more expensive while 1680x1050 and 1920x1080 cost the same?

Cost sometimes is not the same thing as value.

For instance, 16:10 monitors cost more than 16:9 monitors, for Joe Average who doesn't have extensive needs for a 16:10 monitor, the 16:9 monitor probably appeals to his wallet, so the cost of it factors into his likely decision to buy a 16:9 monitor over a 16:10.

Peter Poweruser might decide that 16:10 suits his needs, even though it costs 40 percent more on average and he's ok with that because it satisfies him.

Comparing things on price isn't always gonna cut it, because people attach different values to dollar values, some go for bang for the buck, others go for absolute cheapest, still others want highest quality possible, and still yet others opt for a happy medium between price and performance.

You can't really make comparisions for something so subjective because the meaning is different for everyone.

 

[Oled]

Cost sometimes is not the same thing as value.

For instance, 16:10 monitors cost more than 16:9 monitors, for Joe Average who doesn't have extensive needs for a 16:10 monitor, the 16:9 monitor probably appeals to his wallet, so the cost of it factors into his likely decision to buy a 16:9 monitor over a 16:10.

Peter Poweruser might decide that 16:10 suits his needs, even though it costs 40 percent more on average and he's ok with that because it satisfies him.

Comparing things on price isn't always gonna cut it, because people attach different values to dollar values, some go for bang for the buck, others go for absolute cheapest, still others want highest quality possible, and still yet others opt for a happy medium between price and performance.

You can't really make comparisions for something so subjective because the meaning is different for everyone.

Obviously it is good to compare different alternatives. But people also choose between alternatives where the 16:9 monitor has the highest resolution. For instance it is not that rare that people choose between a 1920x1200 monitor and a 2560x1440 monitor. So whether the 16:9 or 16:10 monitor will have the highest resolution depends on which monitors you choose between. And thats also why it is not more strange to compare 2560x1440 and 1920x1200 than 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 cause you evaluate the value of each resolution.

 

[evilsofa]

What some people dont get is that just because 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 sound similar they are not the same. Its not like that you get pixels for free just because you buy 16:10. The comment that you get more pixels with 16:10 is ridicolous because no matter how you look at it you get more pixels if you buy 16:9 instead of 16:10. No matter what budget you have you will always end up with fewer pixels if you buy 16:10 instead of 16:9.

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

1920x1200 has 230,400 more pixels than 1920x1080. This seems like very basic math to me. I am baffled; what am I missing here?

 

[Shalafi]

Obviously it is good to compare different alternatives. But people also choose between alternatives where the 16:9 monitor has the highest resolution. For instance it is not that rare that people choose between a 1920x1200 monitor and a 2560x1440 monitor. So whether the 16:9 or 16:10 monitor will have the highest resolution depends on which monitors you choose between. And thats also why it is not more strange to compare 2560x1440 and 1920x1200 than 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 cause you evaluate the value of each resolution.

Are you trying to repeat what I just said???

 

[Oled]

Are you trying to repeat what I just said???

Then I missunderstood you. sorry.

 

[Oled]

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
1920x1200 = 2,304,000 pixels

1920x1200 has 230,400 more pixels than 1920x1080. This seems like very basic math to me. I am baffled; what am I missing here?

Dont wanna go in that discussion again. I mean that if you have a given budget you get more pixels if you buy 16:9 instead of 16:10. If you buy 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200 you will have money for a secondary monitor so therefor you will end up with more pixels.

 

[Shalafi]

We didn't say the exact same thing, but you can't really force your opinion on something subjective onto others, it simply doesn't work.

Saying that people should buy this or that based on metrics that you or i, or anybody subscribes to is useless because not everybody will use the same metrics or criteria to reach a decision.

Everyone has different metrics and criteria, that's why capitalism and a free market work, but that's another topic for another day.

On topic, I kind of think that I want a 16:10 monitor since I have gotten so used to playing games at that resolution on my laptop. I also do know you can change it to 16:9 when you want and back to 16:10 for gaming and whatnot.

I'd rather have 16:10 and not need it than to need 16:10 and not have it.

And yes, obviously 16:10 has more pixels than 16:9, that's just obvious . . . .

Oled, you might want to give up the discussion on price, because people value their money and apply their financial values differently towards products they buy.

For you a 16:9 monitor might be all you can afford, or you can afford Eyeinfinity 6 monitor setup, but you are satisfied with a single 16:9 monitor, either way, that is your personal choice.

 

[elvn]

http://www.3dalchemist.com/hardware-info/screen-sizes.htm

27" 1920 x 1080 81.6 ppi 0.3113 mm 16:9 1.98 MP 264%
27" 1920 x 1200 83.9 ppi 0.3029 mm 16:10 2.2 MP 293%


27" 2560 x 1440 108.8 ppi 0.2335 mm 16:9 3.52 MP 469%
30" 2560 x 1600 100.6 ppi 0.2524 mm 16:10 3.91 MP 521%


It depends on what resolution you are talking about, an whether you consider more pixels total per panel, or more pixels per inch ~ "screen acuity". 1080 vs 1200 is only 2.3 pixels per inch difference.. 1440 vs 1600 is actually 8.2 pixels per inch greater for the 16:9 resolution. Since you can easily run multiple monitors I still think these differences aren't a big deal either way.. 1080 vs 1200 is +60px/+60px top/bottom .. compared to running multiple monitors in whatever config PPP, PLP, above/below, or any mix that suits you - I don't think it really become a great concern for adept multiple monitor users realistically but for the most stubborn.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

What I don't get is what Price has to do with Work Efficiency. I don't work better when I spend less money.

Also, I have to agree, when having multiple monitors, Aspect ratio is irrelevant most of the time. When using monitors solely in portrait mode, I prefer 16:10 or narrower (Landscape) aspect ratios. The perceived bezel gap between panels is lessened on narrower (Landscape) aspect ratios.

Having personal experience with running 5x1 1080p panels in portrait, work became annoying, because I had to side scroll on web pages. It slowed my progress. Using 5x1 1080p Panels in Landscape, I used only 3 screens really (for work).

Now I've never personally owned a 1200p monitor, but my step dad uses one. Even when I was rocking all those 1080p panels, I wanted a 1200p monitor because games were more crisp versus 1080p. And 23" vs 24" made a big difference. In general I prefer 16:10 because personally it feels better. My first widescreen was 16:10, my second 16:9, and my 3rd 16:10.

At this point I'm rambling. I still want to know what Price has to do with work efficiency. OLED since, you've been bringing it up a lot, tell me.

EDIT: Also, my budget is small like anyone else, I work at a taco bell making a little more then minimum wage in VA (I make $7.60/hr).

 

[cvgd]

Here's my general problem with 16:9 monitors: they limit my flexibility. 1080 monitors are just not wide enough for all of the uses I would like to make of monitors in portrait mode --they are not great for web browsing, in particular, as I don't want to have to scroll horizontally. The wider landscape monitor becomes narrower when used in portrait mode; contrary to the above posters, the 16:9 ratio is more acute, in my experience, in multiple monitor configurations.

I have a 16:9 2560x1440 monitor. It is awesome in landscape mode. I have no problem with two separate windows open in each half of the screen; the two 1280x1440 frames are more than adequate for my uses. The vertical height, 1440, feels good, and the width is enough that I never have to scroll. But I can flip my 2560x1440 into portrait; it's nowhere near as useful in this configuration. Looking up and down at windows isn't as comfortable; there isn't even a decent aero-snap hotkey to position windows that way. 720 pixels is nowhere near enough width to have two frames side by side. A 2560x1440 is only useful in portrait if you're only going to have one frame on it, and even then, it can be uncomfortable to interact with the very top or very bottom. There is simply a diminishing return to vertical pixels above around 2000, or actually above around 24 inches.

I've tried to make it work. Two of my 16x9 1080 monitors are on a double stand from monoprice, stacked one above the other. When the 2560x1440 is in portrait, the double 23" 1080s match up well visually, and I've theoretically got space for 5 separate work frames. But I just couldn't accommodate the compromises needed to make it work -- too little visible material in some frames, too much in the other.

I'd love to see a 1:1 monitor, 1440x1440, with roughly the pixel pitch of the 27" 2560x1440, to flank the 27", or a 3:2 monitor @ 1800x1200. But regardless, I want the pixel dimensions on both sides to be at least 1200, and I don't want to waste vertical space.

It may be that the price of the 27" 2560x1440 monitors will come down in price and I'll just buy two more. I've already considered it, between decent NEC refurb deals and the prices of the Hazro monitors. It could also be that the new higher density panels from the mobile machines will continue to creep into desktop space, to the point where 2560 vertical pixels won't require awkward efforts to use -- a 24" 2560x1440 monitor would probably work well. But until those things happen, the 16:9 ratio is troubling, limiting my choices.

I've also been debating getting two of the old Lenovo/IBM 220x monitors, or the Eizo s2243w, both 22" 16:10 1920x1200 monitors. If the Lenovo was new and ~$400, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. $900 and refurb has me questioning.

 

[suiken_2mieu]

...contrary to the above posters, the 16:9 ratio is more acute, in my experience, in multiple monitor configurations...

We're saying the same thing?

Also, I have to agree, when having multiple monitors, Aspect ratio is irrelevant most of the time. When using monitors solely in portrait mode, I prefer 16:10 or narrower (Landscape) aspect ratios. The perceived bezel gap between panels is lessened on narrower (Landscape) aspect ratios.

Having personal experience with running 5x1 1080p panels in portrait, work became annoying, because I had to side scroll on web pages. It slowed my progress. Using 5x1 1080p Panels in Landscape, I used only 3 screens really (for work).

Basically, I'd a square for multi-monitor setups. Scalability goes up, the custom resolutions you could make goes up, etc. I wouldn't mind a 2560x2560 monitor, even shrink the dpi and make it a 24" or 27". etc.

 

[cvgd]

I hadn't seen your post when I started my screed -- I agree 100%. I can make use of a 1080 monitor in portrait, but I'd prefer 1200.

 

[RedTalon19]

I have a U3011 at home and I feel like I am more efficient performing work on this monitor than the two 22" dell monitors at 1650x1050 I use at the office. This is due to the amazingly easy-to-use Win7 snapping feature to expand a window to exactly half the screen. I find the extra vertical space of the 2560x1600 more useful than the extra horizontal space of the dual 22" monitors which require more scrolling.

I have zero regrets shelling out the extra cash for the 30" over the 27" Dell. Actually, next week I may rotate my work monitors into portrait mode and see how well that works for productivity...