1280x1440 is not at all close to a 4:3 ratio. For starters, 1280 is a smaller number than 1440.
It looks like you were using "4:3" to simply mean "closer to square than typical widescreen aspect ratios", which is pretty confusing.
Yes, I guess I just meant "squareish". That's embarrassing. I'll try to edit my post to reflect that.
Re:LG’s new 16:18 monitor
by NathanielK on Thursday December 23, 2021 @06:58AM
(#29660995)
> Though you can technically do it, I found most things just don't work well with a 1080 monitor in this mode: 960 wide just isn't enough. Even a lot of websites don't really work properly, and a lot go into mobile layout.
I have found similar. This is why for a cheap portrait monitor I usually recommend older IPS monitors that are available in 1920x1200 or 1600x1200.
Though you can technically do it, I found most things just don't work well with a 1080 monitor in this mode: 960 wide just isn't enough. Even a lot of websites don't really work properly, and a lot go into mobile layout.
This was a good combo of screen space, usability and price.
Full screen movies or games are still 16:9 (supposedly there are/were issues with 32:9 with a lot of games), and I like that I can play a game or movie and still have the other screen showing something. I can also RDP to my work laptop in full-screen on one monitor, and seamlessly work across both - so much simpler than dual-monitor KVM chaos, or dealing with audio- or webcam-over-network issues.
(Edit: re-worded from incorrectly saying 1280 × 1440 is 4:3)