Do you hate widescreen? Are you male?

There are some people who posted in this thread that haven't posted or have been banned for as much as 4 years.
Male
1920x1200
��
 
I read that women have weaker eye muscles which might have something to do with it =)
 
Male
Widescreen 2560x1440
But not because if like/prefer wide aspect, but simply no one produces and sells big cheap screens with good characteristics with less wide aspect ratio. If choice is between 21" 1600x1200 and 32" 2560x1440, of course i'll choose later one. I hope 21:9 ultrawide insanity will never really take off so to not become forced purchase in similar way when next display upgrade is due.
 
Do you hate widescreen? Are you male?
I suspected that the widescreens are targeted at non-real male auditory, and being forced on normal guys.

conchita-wurst-for-eurovision-2014-600x334.jpg
 
16:10 is only an issue with games where it provides narrower FOV vs 16:9 resolution.

16:9 is an issue on desktop if the resolution is only 1080p or below. There is much more limited desktop space compared to the 16:10 1920x1200. At higher resolutions the difference isn't so relevant.

Male, only hate 16:9 widescreen in desktop use.
 
Male
Widescreen 16:9
2560x1440

I hate 4:3. I work, play and watch movies much better on 16:9.
 
That's of course complete BS. At 2560x1920 you can watch your movies just as well. And work... probably even better.
 
There are no women here, not sure why you guys are stating your gender.

I prefer 4:3 for websites. I mostly read anyway. Books aren't widescreen or landscape; they're in portrait view. For multitasking and multiple windows side by side, I prefer widescreen. There are monitors you can rotate though I haven't tried them.
 
Male: Widescreen 2304x1440.
But I loves me some 4:3. Pretty sure my F520 can do 2560x1920 without much issue. I run 1920x1440 on it all the time.
 
If you are using this thread for your data. Please don't bother writing up the study. go back to studies 101
 
It will vary depending on what you're doing. I don't think you can possibly remove aspect ratio from the distance you're watching, making the study moot. If you sit in front of a huge monitor, it won't really matter much what the aspect ratio is, seeing as your peripheral vision will be busy regardless of anything.

That said, I appreciate horizontal, but dislike vertical real estate. It distracts me, no matter what I'm doing.

I think most people expressing a preference for an aspect ratio don't really have a rational basis for it. The people who really benefit from more real estate are the people who can't be arsed to reach for the mouse and constantly scroll and move their content around, like programmers. Then there's video games and most people will prefer them in 16:9 because practically all of them are designed around 16:9, so that's no real argument there.
 
I never said that. Depending on the monitor I'm using:

GDM-FW900 - 2304x1440, 75Hz
GDM-F520 - 1920x1440 75hz
Artisan - 1792x1344 75hz

Top one is 16:10, bottom two are 4:3.

oh wow i am jealous. i'd love to play some quake on one of those.
 
39 year old male, Sagittarius (half man, half horse)

3440 x 1440 (21:9 will replace 16:9 as the standard, in time)

it rocks
 
oh wow i am jealous. i'd love to play some quake on one of those.

Yeah, they rock, especially for FPS's. Currently, the plan is that when we get our new house, to assemble some cheap LAN boxes in the basement and use these monitors for LAN party gaming. Except for the Artisan, which I believe will be used as a photo monitor.
 
I never said that. Depending on the monitor I'm using:

GDM-FW900 - 2304x1440, 75Hz
GDM-F520 - 1920x1440 75hz
Artisan - 1792x1344 75hz

Top one is 16:10, bottom two are 4:3.

Ah ok. Nice setup. But I could never stand 75 Hz on CRT's; only at 80 and above I wouldn't see the flickering. PWM dimmed LED's with too low frequency also annoy the heck out of me. Especially car tail lights..

Learn to read.

Learn to shut up
 
I run 4 x 30" 2560x1600 screens and a 27" 1920x1200 screen. I am male, and I prefer 16:10 screens, but I'm also very interested in 21:9 3440x1440 screens for gaming.
 
Ah ok. Nice setup. But I could never stand 75 Hz on CRT's; only at 80 and above I wouldn't see the flickering.

Thank you. I must be lucky, because my eyes aren't bothered by CRT's at 75hz. I can take them as low as 60hz for gaming, but not for desktop usage. The flickering at 60hz drives me nuts for desktop usage at that low refresh. F520 can go up to 100hz officially at 1600x1200, unofficially you can take it up to 121 hz.

EDIT: Reason I run the lower refresh (75hz) is that it adds extra sharpness to the screen if you go lower than 85 hz. At least on my video card, that is.

And make no mistake. I could easily run 2304x1440 on the 4:3's. The F520 would display it even sharper than the FW900 could! :D
 
Last edited:
Back
Top