Last week I watched a review of the LG gram and the reviewer said he liked the new 16:10 screens more, because they are higher and this new [sic] trend was promising.
Meanwhile I'm using one of the last reasonably priced 16:10 screens I could get 10 years ago before the whole industry decided people only want 16:9.
Same goes with glare and non-glare
It's like display creators lost their minds in 2005.
For larger desktop screens, I definitely prefer the aspect ratio most closely matching full screen video. And for my comically large (43”) monitor, I couldn’t use the extra vertical space if I tried. Reducing the width would just limit my usable horizontal space and shrink video for my dual purpose TV use.
> Same goes with glare and non-glare
On this I’d also distinguish portable/desktop use cases. And weirdly they’re the opposite of what I’d prefer. It’s almost impossible for me to find large screen glass-front monitors with the contrast and color space benefits that come with that. And portable usage definitely benefits more from glare protection.
It's actually pretty hilarious if you have a monitor arm that allows rotating the monitor, the amount of vertical space is ludicrous. You can fit a side by side diff with over 200 lines of code visible.
It's not very practical, though.
It's a bit silly though, since the keyboard is far too low for typing comments on a diff. And if one raises the desk so that the keyboard is at the right height, it's a good workout for the neck to put it mildly.
I didn't see 1920x1080 as worth the upgrade. Although I have recently had to tweak/mod a few games as they didn't support my screen resolution.
Now, I want 2x 4k screens: - play games at 1080, I have not the money for 4k gaming at high refresh rates.
- and desktop productivity at 4k, with one screen portrait for reading.
I do sunburn far easier than I'd like though! :-P
You can probably use it without scaling so high dpi compatibility won't be a problem.
Don't settle for 32 inch get a 40+ inch one.
So in order to get crisp DPIs, 32'' with fractional scaling might still make sense. At least to me, it's like reading crisp sharp paper online.
Hellzyeah! Where can I get one of those bad boys? And how many arms and legs plus first born children are needed to give up to get one of those mythical beasts?
Can't decide if you mean 40" display or 4K display? Or did you combine 40" + 4k into 40k?
My home (and home office) setup is 14" 1920x1080 laptop + 24" 2560x1440 screen (1x scaling), and I like that a lot, too. The WQHD screen is wide enough to have two things open side by side, which can feel cramped on FHD, while also having sufficiently many vertical pixels.
That sort of made sense for desktop monitors, for a little while, but the overlap between laptop/monitor and TV offerings has almost completely disappeared-- 17" and smaller TVs are not mass market items.
I wonder if part of it is just as a penny pinching gimmick now: a square monitor of X diagonal gives you more square centimetres of panel than a wider screen does.
The increase in vertical space is exactly what I was missing while coding: that alone is a significant and worthwhile upgrade, and for that the fact it's 16:9 is kind of irrelevant. Because it's 16:9, YouTube, games, etc still work the way they always did.
Compared to my monitors at work (1920×1200 / 16:10), the benefit is I can run two browser windows side-by-side with a comfortable 1280px width that most sites work great with. 1920px is too narrow to run 50%/50%, but I find also usually wasted at 100% width.
There's not that many other options.
I can't actually find many 16:10 on the market.
4K is usually 3840x2160, which is 16:9. For me this doesn't make sense: either the monitor(s) end up being too massive, the text is too tiny, or I have to scale up and basically have the same vertical space as 1080p 16:9 just with sharper text.
21:9 3440x1440 is probably the next most popular aspect ratio, but two are just way too big for my desk space and I didn't think I'd be happy with one (it's only a tiny bit more area vs 2x 1080p).
The 32:9 "ultra-wide" 5120x1440 look pretty great, but in practice seem to have some challenges. As an example, you can't really do full screen sharing anymore because no one else can see it. Window management becomes a constant pain because "full screen" most apps/websites are just not going to be useful at 5120px wide. And for games it seems to be mixed: when they work it looks pretty cool, but many don't work properly. And on top of that, going fullscreen gaming means you don't get a second monitor to keep an eye on something else, even if your game is running in 16:9 with black bars. For video editors or people working on stupidly big spreadsheets it might make sense, but not for me. (Doesn't help it's 4x the cost of a 2560×1440 display, either).
But the sharper text is the whole point. That's why I abandoned the idea of getting a 4k 43" monitor, the DPI is the same as on a FHD 22" one. Even a 32" is "pushing it", as in the DPI isn't that high.
However, note that not all text needs to be big. In my case I run a 4k screen at 100%, which allows me to have tiny title and toolbars, which means more actual space. I don't need the UI elements to be huge, and since I mostly use terminals and web browsers, adjusting the "content text" is enough. Of course, YMMV on Windows and Mac OS where you have to click a lot of buttons, so their being tiny might be an issue.
Of course, if for your use and / or preference "sharper text" doesn't matter, you can save a bunch of money by staying with lower-resolution screens and / or get a single giant one if that's your cup of tea.
I only have a 21:9 ultrawide but this is definitely a drawback. I have a second monitor that is just 16:9 that is used for all of my screen sharing
I work with text all day. I want it as sharp as I can get it.
I used (and still have) the original Chromebook Pixel in my closet with a 3:2 screen. amazing for browsing documents, but YouTube videos always felt off.
At home with TVs, I'm okay with the letter boxing to watch 1.85,2.35 type content on my 1.78 screen. It's the trade off as making a movie buff 2.35 screen would force majority of 1.78 content to be window/pillar boxed.
My Pixel was mostly used as a portable school laptop for web browsing and development, so for those tasks it did a great job. But there was always that nagging feeling when viewing videos and seeing even more black bars on top/botton than even my 16:10 monitor at home.
I hated the 16:9 popularity of computer flat screens. Definitely agree about needing lots of vertical space. I was content with 1600x1200 for years, and then 1920x1200 (1.6 vs 1.5 ratio) was available that was acceptable. Amazing how much smaller 1920x1080 felt, and is just a joke for anything other than watching videos (maybe games? i'm not a gamer) in my daily usage. Never tried one of those rotated 90, but it might be more useful as 9:16.