16:10 vs 16:9 - what you prefer?

[Oled]

@Megalomaniac

Just read the definition of aspect ratio.

16:9 is a wider aspect ratio than 16:10.
and 16:10 is a wider aspect ratio than 4:3.

4:3 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:10.
and 16:10 is a higher aspect ratio than 16:9.

Thats all!

 

[elvn]

No I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.

.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.

So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask

"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"

 

[Acer_Sheep]

No I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.

.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.

So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask

"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"

You're right but you must count on aspect ratios as they are used today belonging to only several certain screen sizes and formats that are available on the market. And in this case 16:10 has more viewable area than 16:9, of course if you cut-off width from 16:9 to make it 16:10 you make it smaller, but such a monitors are not in production, or they are pretty rare.

 

[Oled]

No I'm just saying its a 10% cut either way.. Cut 10% height off any 16:10 and you have a 16:9 (that we have today).. cut 10% width off any 16:9 and you have a 16:10. There is no reason production wise that 16:10 has to have more pixels, other than the way things played out.

.. If it weren't for the cut being the way it is, less people would want 16:10.

So in order to question which actual aspect you prefer from as a pure aspect ratio, you have to cancel out the +/- 10% width or +/- 10% height and ask

"which aspect ratio do you prefer to have more pixels due to aspect limitation on similar resolution monitors?"

I understand what you mean.

I think the problem in these discussions are that there are no true comparable 16:9 and 16:10 monitors.

Many people base their opinion on what they can afford instead of which aspect ratio they prefer.

 

[quantum112]

I'd still want it, because I actually like the ratio. It's the closest to the golden ratio which is present in many places in nature, architecture, etc. which is a significant and specific number much like pi. Even our brain waves clock cycle operates according to it.

It is simply the only widescreen ratio that looks natural to me. But, it is a characteristic of humans to veer off into wrong directions (which is why we evolve as a species), and change for change's sake isn't invention.

It's enough for me to take a look at Eizo's CG series monitor table (probably among the highest-end LCD's as far as color reproduction, etc.) and see that out of 10 monitors, only 1 has a 16:9 aspect ratio.

 

[Megalomaniac]

elvn, sorry still not getting it. So are you saying that people want 16:10 because it's 10% (yeah i know its more like 11%) height?

I think that that is the point, you could have any cut you chose, you are right, the could have a 16:7 cut. but that would be really wide, and not to useful to vertical scrolling. How about wide screens? like the one the previous page, with three screen together, what if that was one big screen, a 48x10 or something like that. Or the same but vertical? say three stacked vertically, so a 16:30?

I guess I don't see the argument here, can it be done, sure,but the reason people like 1920x1200 over a 1920x1080, is the extra pixels at the top and bottom, that is a fact for those who care about it. Those pixels, do translate into actual, physical dimensions, be it on a 23-24" screen or a 19" screen or a 30" screen. the 16:10 ratio, will equal more pixels, not for the sake of resolution, but for the sake of more workable space.

 

[Acer_Sheep]

It's enough for me to take a look at Eizo's CG series monitor table (probably among the highest-end LCD's as far as color reproduction, etc.) and see that out of 10 monitors, only 1 has a 16:9 aspect ratio.

It has been said here that 16:9 is used mostly for multimedia and basic stuff, for working and creativity 16:10 is preffered, and therefore eizo either as manufacturer of high end displays follows this direction.

elvn, sorry still not getting it. So are you saying that people want 16:10 because it's 10% (yeah i know its more like 11%) height?

I think that that is the point, you could have any cut you chose, you are right, the could have a 16:7 cut. but that would be really wide, and not to useful to vertical scrolling. How about wide screens? like the one the previous page, with three screen together, what if that was one big screen, a 48x10 or something like that. Or the same but vertical? say three stacked vertically, so a 16:30?

I guess I don't see the argument here, can it be done, sure,but the reason people like 1920x1200 over a 1920x1080, is the extra pixels at the top and bottom, that is a fact for those who care about it. Those pixels, do translate into actual, physical dimensions, be it on a 23-24" screen or a 19" screen or a 30" screen. the 16:10 ratio, will equal more pixels, not for the sake of resolution, but for the sake of more workable space.

On LCD screen, higher resolution always means larger viewable area, because the grid of pixels has to be in same amount as a resolution, so if your screen has 1920x1200 resolution, it does have 1920 pixels on horizontal side and 1200 on vertical and no other way around. In large format screens they all have same HD resolution and same amount of pixels, just their dot-pitch and size of each of them is different but the amount of them is same.

 

[Oled]

It has been said here that 16:9 is used mostly for multimedia and basic stuff, for working and creativity 16:10 is preffered, and therefore eizo either as manufacturer of high end displays follows this direction.

Well, not really any more.

Eizos high end monitor right now is actually even wider than 16:9. It has a resolution of 4096x2160.

2560x1600 monitors appears to be phaced out quicker than 1920x1200.

 

[quantum112]

Well, not really any more.

Eizos high end monitor right now is actually even wider than 16:9. It has a resolution of 4096x2160.

2560x1600 monitors appears to be phaced out quicker than 1920x1200.

That is a 36" monitor of the DuraVision series (industrial / security applications) that costs $36,000. It is not even remotely aimed at home computing or multimedia use, and is very unlikely to be setting any kind of future trends for those markets.

 

[Oled]

That is a 36" monitor of the DuraVision series (industrial / security applications) that costs $36,000. It is not even remotely aimed at home computing or multimedia use, and is very unlikely to be setting any kind of future trends for those markets.

True, but even most office monitors are 16:9 now.

 

[elvn]

sorry megalo you aren't understanding what I was saying, though I think others got it and chose which they wanted purely on aspect as I was outlining, instead of basing it on the arbitrary production cuts.

The eizo 4k will be like $36k heh. The 4k is more for TV's -> 4k movies imo, 256px wider than QFHD. I think LG and most likely apple will put out a high end consumer based QuadFullHD 3840x2160 16:9 ips that will be more affordable (relatively) in the next year or two. I'm glad its one very high rez with plenty of vertical, and no other aspect ratio. 166ppi.

 

[elvn]

Pixel densities

4.3"....................960 x 540.........256.15 ppi.....0.0992 mm <- phone
..
(LG Quad full HD)
26.5"................3840 x 2160.......166.26 ppi ....0.1528 mm <-- 166ppi quoted resolves to 26.5"
27"...................3840 x 2160.......163.18 ppi.....0.1557 mm <-- may not be viewable size if ppi quote is accurate

10.1"................1280 x 800.........146.55 ppi....0.1783 mm <- tablet
17"...................1920 x 1080.......129.58 ppi....0.1960 mm <-- laptop

22.5" (24").......2304 x 1440.......118.13 ppi....0.2150 mm <--- FW900 widescreen CRT max rez 22.5" viewable (80hz) ..
27"...................2560 x 1440.......108.8 ppi....0.2335 mm
30"...................2560 x 1600.......100.6 ppi....0.2524 mm

22"...................1920 x 1080........100.132 ppi..0.2530 mm
20.1"................1680 x 1050..........98.4 ppi ..0.258 mm

23"...................1920 x 1080.........95.78 ppi....0.2652 mm <-- 60hz/120hz
24"...................1920 x 1200.........94.3 ppi....0.2692 mm

24"...................1920 x 1080..........91.8 ppi....0.2767 mm
19"...................1440 x 900...........89.37 ppi....0.2842 mm
27.5"(28")........1920 x 1200..........82.33 ppi....0.3085 mm
27"...................1920 x 1080.........81.59 ppi....0.3113 mm <-- 60hz / 120hz panels

---Too Large for a Desk, greater viewing distances suggested ----
36.4"................4096 x 2160.......127.22 ppi...0.1997 mm <--- Eizo FDH3601 4K2K 16:9 , sept 2011 release est. $36,000 usd
30"...................1920 x 1080.........73.43 ppi...0.345 mm
32"...................1920 x 1080.........68.84 ppi...0.368 mm
37"...................1920 x 1080.........59.54 ppi..0.4266 mm
40"...................1920 x 1080.........55.07 ppi...0.4612 mm
42"...................1920 x 1080.........52.45 ppi...0.4843 mm

_

"Quad full HD"
Quad full HD IPS panels in the next year (or two).. 3840x2160 27" 16:9 option eventually that could swallow current resolutions whole 16:10 or not...
.
http://flatpanelshd.com/pictures/lgsid2011-1l.jpg
..
.. 1920 vs 2560x
..
.. 1920 vs 2560 ~> +320 left, +320 right (+640 wider)
...1200 vs 1440 ~> +120 top, +120 bottom (+240 taller)
...1200 vs 1600 ~> +200 top, +200 bottom (+400 taller)
...1080 vs 1440 ~> +180 top, +180 bottom (+360 taller)
...1080 vs 1600 ~> +260 top, +260 bottom (+520 taller)


.. "block of four 1080p resolutions ~ Quad Full HD 3840x2160"

.. 1920 vs 3840 ~> +960 left, +960 right (+1920 wider)
.. 1200 vs 2160 ~> +480 top, + 480 bottom(+960 taller)
...1080 vs 2160 ~> +540 top, +540 bottom (+1080 taller)

.. 2560 vs 3840 ~> +640 px left , +640px right.. (+1280 wider)
...1600 vs 2160 ~> +280 px top, +280px bottom (+560 taller)
...1440 vs 2160 ~> +360 px top , +360px bottom (+720 taller)

..

 

[Oled]

I'd still want it, because I actually like the ratio. It's the closest to the golden ratio which is present in many places in nature, architecture, etc. which is a significant and specific number much like pi. Even our brain waves clock cycle operates according to it.

It is simply the only widescreen ratio that looks natural to me. But, it is a characteristic of humans to veer off into wrong directions (which is why we evolve as a species), and change for change's sake isn't invention.

This is actually what this topic should be all about.

If you prefer a wider or more squarish screen.

 

[XoR]

the smaller screen the more squarish it should be. For 15-21" the best ratios are 4:3 and 5:4 and for 24"-27" the best is 16:10. For 30" I would probably go 16:9...

but 24" is in size sweet spot anyway and there is little to no need for larger screen for most people...

 

[Mr Spock]

speaking of fov

FOV in hor+ games is determined by the RESOLUTION not the monitor actual aspect ratio
dont believe? well then look this pic (not mine,found it from google)

http://img17.imageshack.us/img17/1074/1680x300.jpg this is TF2 at 1680x300 in windowed mode, its the res not the monitor what does it,

if the fov is so important then what prevents you running games at 16:9 aspect ratio,i just replayed mirrors edge (one of the few games what doesn't support 16:10 resolutions) month or two ago on my zr24w and i didn't noticed that ive missed something.

1080p on 16:10 screen will give you exactly the same fov than 1080p on the 16:9 screen, only difference is black bars, what ye, may be annoying if panel have some uniformity issues, but that has nothing to do with debate, mine doesn't have any problems so this doesn't affect me.
besides most monitors have "black bars" around them,its called bezel


whats my point?
differences in fov between 16:10 and 16:9 are most cases negligible,chances that those few extra degrees will improve your kill to death ratio in fps games is very doubtful,+ as 16:10 user you have always option to run games at 16:9.if those few degrees are still so important.
if you truly, i mean TRULY!!! want to benefit from wide fov like in that pic and gain edge over other people, then you have to migrate to multi monitor setup, neither 16:10 or 16:9 will cut the mustard in this situation.

i dont directly have anything against 16:9,it just 1080 lines of vertical res is just not enough for me and good 27 inchers,like ACD are out my budget,so my hand are tied,

 

[daveswantek]

All of our hands are tied to what the industry offers and the price points that they sell them at.

 

[XoR]

@Mr Spock
good point. I was actually almost always playing games 16:9 for many many years even though I had 4:3 CRT and 5:4 LCD. Even now on 16:10 CRT I'd rather go 16:9 as it gives me more FOV and more refresh rate

there is no problem using very wide cinema ratios too but that is I think maybe too wide. At least I'd rather not test how it looks because I may be tempted to use it

 

[Oled]

@Mr Spock
....of course it is the monitor resolution. But most people prefer to play without black bars.

 

[Valnar]

Ugh, not this question again. Yet I feel compelled to answer.

To me, vertical resolution is king, since I actually use my PC to work and not play games.

Therefore 4:3 > 16:10 > 16:9.

I'm typing on a 4:3 now at work. Home has a 16:10. My laptops are 4:3 and 16:10. I don't own any 16:9 screens except my TV. It's not just a matter of preference. They seriously would not work for me. eg. I like the smaller laptops and a new 1366x768 laptop would send me back to the 90's on vertical resolution. I can give a crap about the wasted horizontal space, but I do need to get my job done efficiently.

Toolbars, taskbars and ribbons take up vertical space, not horizontal.

16:9 also takes up too much desk space, regardless of size. Now I need a bigger desk.

 

[elvn]

In the case of 2560x screens the 30" 's pixels are larger, not only giving a false impression of the resolution real-estate difference but making the 30" panel much larger than it would be at the 27" 2560x 's 108.8 ppi. So in that case, the 30" actually takes up more space in relation to my own FoV. In fact if I owned one, I would have to set it back a bit further to fit my viewing perspective better.

A 27.5" 1920x1200 16:10 compared to a 27" 16:9 wouldn't be much difference physically at a desk btw either, I've had both.

You can also unlock and drag your taskbar to either side of your screen just so you know (then re-lock it), and toolboxes in photoshop and other graphics apps float and are highly cofigurable so can make use of the side width.

I wouldn't want 768 on a laptop either however.. I'd just get a 15" 1080p if I wanted a small full featured mobile laptop. I use the 1280x800 tablet and its zoom for mobile use, as well as my phone. For real graphics work or games I use a DTR (desktop replacement) which is portable rather than mobile - in a backpack for more muscle, 17" 1080p.

Your height choices are due to an arbitrary cut in relation to aspect ratio - but I can understand your gripe at lower resolutions especially.

 

[Inu]

Either or, learn to deal.

 

[dioxholster]

i only gamed on 16:10, and i can say it seems weird to me sometimes, like a little too vertical in games like starcraft. Maybe i just got used to the youtube videos and how the game looks on them.

 

[LigTasm]

I like my 16:10 even though its a narrower FOV in some games.

 

[Oled]

delete

 

[D4rkn3ss]

i had a few Dells over the years and im currently using one U2410 as a main screen, my personal preference is undoubtful 16:10 for PCs. 16:9 looks cool on the TV but for the PC display that i use in front of me, near my face, 16:9 is actually annoying, its even worse in notebooks. thats my personal opinion.

 

[Oled]

Everyone had 1680x1050 monitors back then, not 1600x900.

1) 16:10 does not have higher resolution than 16:9.

Why are you comparing 1680x1050 with 1600x900? Most 1680x1050 monitors are 22". In similar size the 16:9 monitors have the resolution 1920x1080.

 

[pwnrhasta]

1) 16:10 does not have higher resolution than 16:9.

Why are you comparing 1680x1050 with 1600x900? Most 1680x1050 monitors are 22". In similar size the 16:9 monitors have the resolution 1920x1080.

From what I remembered 16:10 does have a higher resolution than 16:9...

Hence 1920x1200 versus 1920x1080.

Now if we are talking about same sized monitors then thats a different story.

 

[Ocean]

i have fat cheeks, big bushy eyebrows, and my eyes are far apart.

16x9 for me.

 

[KarsusTG]

I cant believe this is still a debate after at least 4 years. It really comes down to one question. Are you going to use your computer for anything other than watching movies? If you do it's really a no brainer.

Both 1920x1200 and 1920x1080 are found commonly in 22 and 24" monitors.

They are both the same amount of pixels wide, but the 1200 you get more pixels vertically. That can be advantageous if your working with databases, spreadsheets, vm's, mmo's, or anything like that.

They are both really good at playing movies and such, so your not going to lose anything that way, and anything you can do on a 1920x1080 you can do equally as well or a 1920x1200. The 1080 screens have a narrow vertical view that will drive you crazy once you have used a decent 1200 screen.

The only real con to a 1920x1200 screen is they are usually a little more expensive. But really your getting more for your money. If your problem is you like the 1080 resolution for some games, you can always set it to that resolution for that game, and still have your vertical pixels for everything else!

 

[Oled]

@Karsus

The main problem is that there are plenty of more resolutions than 1920x1080 and 1920x1200.

 

[Oled]

From what I remembered 16:10 does have a higher resolution than 16:9...

Hence 1920x1200 versus 1920x1080.

Now if we are talking about same sized monitors then thats a different story.

1920x1200 /= 16:10
1920x1080 /= 16:9

and not even if the size is similar that is true.

21-22" 16:10 usually are 1680x1050
21-22" 16:9 are 1920x1080

26-27" 16:10 are 1920x1200
27" 16:9 are 1920x1080 or 2560x1440

So really which has highest dpi has nothing to do with aspect ratio.

 

[Acer_Sheep]

I cant believe this is still a debate after at least 4 years. It really comes down to one question. Are you going to use your computer for anything other than watching movies? If you do it's really a no brainer.

Yes, instead of wasting my time by watching something that has nothing to do with me, only will feed me with violence and crap artificial emotions, I do support my interests and work on computer, earning money and gathering knowledge.

 

[Oled]

Yes, instead of wasting my time by watching something that has nothing to do with me, only will feed me with violence and crap artificial emotions, I do support my interests and work on computer, earning money and gathering knowledge.

We probably will discuss aspect ratio 10 years from now. If it isnt 16:9 vs 16:10 it will be 16:9 vs 21:9 or something like that.

It really is a never ending discussion I believe cause I assume we never will see the same aspect ratio for all devices and applications.

 

[Impulse]

1920x1200 /= 16:10
1920x1080 /= 16:9

and not even if the size is similar that is true.

21-22" 16:10 usually are 1680x1050
21-22" 16:9 are 1920x1080

26-27" 16:10 are 1920x1200
27" 16:9 are 1920x1080 or 2560x1440

So really which has highest dpi has nothing to do with aspect ratio.

But it's the sizes in between those that most often give rise to discussions like these.

24" 16:10 are 1920x1200
23-24" 16:9 are 1920x1080

In that specific scenario, opting for the 16:10 display does equal more pixels (indirectly). You purposely choose to ignore this to keep pushing your agenda, which is fine, since you're usually panned within a few posts by people who are used to reading the same vitriol over and over.

Looking at the big picture you're actually right tho (no pun intended). 16:10 vs 16:9 isn't necessarily a valid discussion, even tho your usual reasoning has nothing to do with the true reality; 16:9 isn't commonly a preferred standard by anyone but panel manufacturers. Elvn tried to explain it much more logically but it flew over the head of some, if anything the argument should be 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. At resolutions above that it's usually not even an argument because vertical work space ceases to be an issue.

Unfortunately most people can't afford or aren't ready to invest in 27"+ displays (or simply dint have the desk space), so we end up with the aspect ratio argument which largely revolves around 24" displays... Although it's also very relevant on laptops where unfortunately even 1200 or 1080 lines of vertical res are usually a luxury.

 

[Oled]

The thing is that if you want to discuss 24" 16:10 1920x1200 vs 23-24" 16:9 1920x1080 then do that and dont claim that you discuss 16:10 vs 16:9.

It is like me saying that 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because of that 27" 16:9 is 2560x1440 and 24" 16:10 is 1920x1200.

In those cases it has nothing to do with aspect ratio really but simply that a higher resolution is "better" than a lower resolution.

 

[Impulse]

console ports seem to be bearing down on 16:9 based FOVs out of habit, limited dev time, or whatever. Even "PC" games seem to be following the same, abheit, and at least modifyable FOV (and in true console form, we have to edit text files outside of the program itself, instead of the option - normallly nonexistant - being in-game).

Whoever posted the 16:10 paper, thank you, it's good reading Sadly, unlike the iPhone 4, my phone is 16:9 so... lol*. Otherwise, I really hope another company actually utilizes the Retina display, and this is one are I feel Apple has done well in - instead of ever slimmer displays on their mobile devices, Apple has kept stuff bigger than 16:9

*edit: I only mention since I am reading it on my phone.

It's really all about panel costs at this point, nothing else. Most high end Android phones except Samsung's are now qHD (960x540) and thus 16:9, yet last year they were all 800x480 which is nearly 16:10. Completely arbitrary as far as the consumer is concerned, qHD wasn't even an official Android res. I gotta say the narrower form factor does feel slightly better in hand but that's only because I'm comparing qHD at 4.3" vs 800x480 at the same 4.3". If you throw 3.7", 4", and 4.5" displays in there it becomes completely arbitrary again (and there ARE phones out right now in all those sizes with varying aspect ratios).

At the same time every single high end Android tablet is 16:10 with a res of 1280x800, whether at 10" or 8.9"; and yet Apple went with 4:3 (1024x768) for a device aimed directly at media consumption... So much for 16:9 being such a logical standard.

 

[Impulse]

The thing is that if you want to discuss 24" 16:10 1920x1200 vs 23-24" 16:9 1920x1080 then do that and dont claim that you discuss 16:10 vs 16:9.

It is like me saying that 16:9 is far better than 16:10 because of that 27" 16:9 is 2560x1440 and 24" 16:10 is 1920x1200.

In those cases it has nothing to do with aspect ratio really but simply that a higher resolution is "better" than a lower resolution.

Whether you know it or not you actually just agreed with what I posted, even tho your post is phrased as an argument (unless it wasn't aimed at mine even tho it directly follows it, right? ). I want to discuss what's relevant to consumers TODAY, as the OP probably did. Who knows what you wanna discuss, I'm not sure even you do. My post read:

16:10 vs 16:9 isn't necessarily a valid discussion, even tho your usual reasoning has nothing to do with the true reality; 16:9 isn't commonly a preferred standard by anyone but panel manufacturers. Elvn tried to explain it much more logically but it flew over the head of some, if anything the argument should be 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080. At resolutions above that it's usually not even an argument because vertical work space ceases to be an issue.

Plus I even explained the context behind it, from a space and cost perspective 24" happens to be a sweet spot, and will remain so for years until we get relatively affordable displays with a 4K res. The argument is also relevant for laptops usually constrained by even lower res displays where s 16:9 ratio is widely viewed as a downgrade due to reduced workspace. Maybe my english just isn't very good, being a 2nd language and all...

Honestly, at a certain point you're not even arguing personal preference but semantics (or how accurately the thread is titled). With larger displays the aspect ratio is rarely an issue so it rarely comes up, duh.

 

[Walker]

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1037228229&postcount=26

Interesting read. No wonder 16:10 feels a lot more natural to work with.

<shakes head>

That's unbelievable really.

@10e
i have never visited the site you mention in my life which make your post very strange.

Oh hai Hydros

 

[Oled]

Plus I even explained the context behind it, from a space and cost perspective 24" happens to be a sweet spot, and will remain so for years until we get relatively affordable displays with a 4K res. The argument is also relevant for laptops usually constrained by even lower res displays where s 16:9 ratio is widely viewed as a downgrade due to reduced workspace. Maybe my english just isn't very good, being a 2nd language and all...

People have different budgets and also different needs. Some prefer two or three screens over one. Some others dont care about pixel density but simply want a big screen. Some others just want the highest dpi possible so whats the sweet spot is very different dependent on who we are talking about.

By the way your english is great. No worries!

 

[Megalomaniac]

You purposely choose to ignore this to keep pushing your agenda, which is fine, since you're usually panned within a few posts by people who are used to reading the same vitriol over and over.

sad, but true.

At resolutions above that it's usually not even an argument because vertical work space ceases to be an issue.

You know, I was just thinking of what kind of desks an office would have to splurge for to accommodate two really wide (say 21 ) monitors, not that they would be good for anything other than viewing two movies at the same time. And it's just impracticable for any work environment.

Unfortunately most people can't afford or aren't ready to invest in 27"+ displays (or simply dint have the desk space), so we end up with the aspect ratio argument which largely revolves around 24" displays... Although it's also very relevant on laptops where unfortunately even 1200 or 1080 lines of vertical res are usually a luxury.

Again, the financial constraints put a limit what people are willing to buy. I still remember how shocked my friends where 4 years ago when they say my 24" screen and how much desk space it still takes up. And here I want a second monitor...

Honestly, at a certain point you're not even arguing personal preference but semantics (or how accurately the thread is titled). With larger displays the aspect ratio is rarely an issue so it rarely comes up, duh.

SO what will we argue about on these big screens then we need something?

16:10
End of story, period.
Why isn't OLED banned yet? Lack of action is affecting the credibility of this site as a whole, in my opinion.

very true. We could all just flag his posts and deem them as offensive Mod's know that enough people have expressed their aghast...