whay arent monitors 16:9

[cannondale06]

Im sure this has been asked before but is there any legitimate reason why widescreen pc monitors are 16:10 as opposed to 16:9?? It just seems logical that they should be the same as televisions to me.

 

[Blahman]

Probably because computer resolutions have traditionally needed to be divisible by 8 or 16 (though not so much anymore), and using an odd number in the aspect ratio makes this a lot harder, reducing the number of possible resolutions available in that aspect ratio, and unlike HDTVs which are either 720p or 1080p, there is a need for many different native resolutions in the computing sector, for everything from 1280x800 (e.g. notebooks with 12" screens) to 2560x1600 (30" workstation screens).

 

[NKDietrich]

It's just one of those things... sort of like "Why did 1280x1024 become the standard rather than 1280x960"? It was used widely on CRTs, most games not offering a 960 preset, just 1024. Then when flat panels started coming out, 1280x1024 was the native resolution of many of them, creating the single instance of a 5:4 display, when it was traditionally 4:3. Now you have 16:10 rather than 16:9, despite 16:9 having been standard for HDTV long before the widespread use of widescreen PC monitors.

 

[IceStorm]

There are a couple 16:9 monitors. There was a 17" Westinghouse a while back (the one in the laptop-looking 360 project) and currently Gateway is selling a 17" 16:9 monitor, the FPD1775W. I recently purchased the Gateway because it's small enough to fit in an SKB 3i-2011, along with a 360 (took it cross-country as carry-on luggage).

In general why did PCs go with 16:10 instead of 16:9? The divisible by 8 and existing 1024x768/1600x1200 posited above make sense to me.

 

[mucat]

One of the reason for the extra space is for control panel when viewing movies. With TV, you have the remote so you don't need the extra space.

 

[Weenis]

I don't mean to argue but, other than tradition.. simple 16:9 leaves you with too few vertical pixels for a lot of things.

I have a 20.1 and a 24" 16:10.. the 20.1 STILL seems short on vertical pixels for certain things (programming and graphics come to mind) Imagine the smaller sizes..and then shave off more to throw it to 16:9.. I would love for there to be a standard.. but 16:9 for tv/movies isnt a standard anyway.. theres that ultra wide aspect quite a few movies are shot in.. There simply is no one fits all solution.