> The whole reason we switched to 16:9 is for more real estate for side-by-side apps.
The whole reason of switching to 16:9 is because TVs did and it’s cheaper for the manufacturers, AND they can advertise the same (or larger) diagonal for less square inches.
When monitors went from 4:3 to 16:9, tv's were going to 16:10.
That’s not really correct. TV went straight from 4:3 SDTV (NTSC/PAL) to 16:9 HDTV. There is no 16:10 TV (signal) aspect ratio. It’s true that there were a few "HD ready" LCD TVs with 16:10 aspect ratio (1680x1050 resolution), but those were never dominant and didn’t precede 16:9 TVs (which were already there in CRT/Plasma/RPTV times).
Computer monitors on the other hand went from 4:3 and 5:4 to 16:10 in the mid-2000s, and then to 16:9 from ~2010 on, after 16:9 had already been well-established on TVs.
See also:
Indeed I flipped which was 16:9 and which was 16:10 in my head.
What TVs were ever 16:10?
I got these flipped, monitors went 16:10, then changed to 16:9
Re:LG’s new 16:18 monitor
by tedunangst on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @01:33PM
(#29653229)
So when did TVs go to 16:9?
Re:LG’s new 16:18 monitor
by theandrewbailey on Wednesday December 22, 2021 @02:16PM
(#29653746)
When HDTV became a thing. Mid-late 90s?
It took a long time to really become mainstream, TV broadcast was firmly 4:3 until roughly the mid-2000s, and 16:9 TVs were expensive until LCD TVs became cheap. There was a long interim period were 16:9 was mainly a DVD aspect ratio you watched on 4:3 TVs with black bars.
Not sure I agree with that.