[PCXL-Fan]

Sure seems like there is a trend towards it. There definitely will always be a market for some 16:10 monitors and makers of it. But to me 16:9 computer screens seem like they are eventualy headed towards a 90% or more marketshare in this sector.

Obviously its economically convenient and cheaper mass to produce the 16:9 pc screens in congruence with the small hdtvs.

Samsung seems to be headed in that direction.

I for one prefer the 16:10 screens. But the 16:9 screens are cheaper...

Whats your take on the 16:9 computer monitors appearing everywhere?

 

[makotech222]

isnt too big of a difference, really. i use to have a 16:10 screen till it died, and the only 120hz monitors there were were 16:9 so i got one. Not much of a difference

 

[S.SubZero]

I hate this 16:9 nonsense. Everything about the new Clevo laptop that is the next generation from mine interested me except they went 16:9. Totally lost the sale with me on that one.

I see Apple caved in with the new 27" iMac, but luckily they went crazy with the resolution (2560 x 1440) so it still has benefit over the typical 1920x1200's in this size.

 

[GCFreak]

To be honest I've thought the opposite was happening, I always see new monitors in 16:10, TVs supporting computer resolutions as their native resolutions and thus becoming 16:10 screens and all the new massive resolutions that are becoming standard are 16:10...so yeah.

Doesn't concern me. I just sit here with my incredible 19" 4:3 1600x1200 Dell M992 flat-screen CRT and cherish the superior picture quality over LCDs.

 

[cottonvibes]

introducing 16:10 pc monitors was a bad idea IMO, i'm glad its dieing down.

we already had 4:3 and 16:9, and content not following those specific ratios have to be letterboxed which is annoying.
16:10 gives you black bars when watching 4:3 AND 16:9 content.

the benefit of 16:10 is you get more screen height to read stuff which is nice on a pc; but its not worth adding another odd ratio into the mix.
ideally most content would just conform to 1 ratio so that most applications won't need letterboxing.

probably the best alternative would've been for tv and movies to go with 16:10, and then pc monitor's could safely follow.
but since the tv's already went the 16:9 way, its best to just conform i think.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

NO YOU!

16:10 is more work space, thus it is better then 16:9 by proxy!

 

[cottonvibes]

i agree 16:10 would be nice if tv/movies/other media would've went that route.

but splitting up pc and hdtv into different ratios is very ugly for cross platform stuff.
if everything used the same ratio you wouldn't have to find hacky solutions for the ratio differences (like letterboxing, zooming/cropping etc...)

 

[Cid Highwind]

NO YOU!

16:10 is more work space, thus it is better then 16:9 by proxy!

Amen

What's the problem with black borders anyway? Otherwise there's the frame around it, and there's a wall behind it. I'm surprised you even notice it when playing a game. I'm happy with the extra workspace it offers. Game developers should just quit being lazy and code a decent field of vision in games according to resolution, can't be harder than writing an AI I think.

Besides, on 16:9 you have black borders as well if you get the cinema editions of movies, which have something like 22:9 or so.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

i just stretch

 

[bkwegoharder]

You see more view area in video games with 16:9

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

no you don't!

 

[bkwegoharder]

Yes you do, games are not pixel based, even though logically you would think that 16:10 gives more area, normally most games simply restrict your viewing area on the sides to get 16:10 instead of giving you more viewing area vertically.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

Thats because most games don't adjust the PoV appropriately, especially where they don't natively support 16:10.

 

[bkwegoharder]

Even most games that do support 16:10 natively give less horizontal area than 16:9.

WSGFWiki

Use this website to search through different video games and their widescreen support, you'll see that universally most games give more viewing area with 16:9. It's like the standard at this point.

 

[Squall-Leonhart]

WSGF hacks are just hacks.

 

[gamefreak94]

lol I really don't like the concept of wide-screen PC monitors at all (it's okay for HDTVs though IMO). 4:3 and 5:4 FTW! More vertical real estate; easier to surf the net/make docs, presentations, spreadsheets and what not!

 

[Princess Garnet]

If 16:9 replaces 16:10, it'll be even longer before I ever considering moving on from this CRT.

I mean, 2560x1440? What a joke! A 4:3 2048 resolution has more vertical real estate (2048x1536). A 2560 resolution should come with a 1920 vertical. 1600 is... half acceptable at best for match with a 2560 horizontal. Any lower is a damn joke.

You're approaching almost twice as wide as you are tall. That's too much of a compromise on vertical estate. It looks good for viewing movies, and perhaps games (arguably). That's it. Okay, LCDs and widescreen were needed to advance to larger resolution and/or smaller spaces (took even them long enough), and productivity went up, okay, but now we really are going backwards. People who want more productivity will be getting two monitors anyway. For the rest of us who use one, the lack of vertical real estate is just laughable now.

I was surprised when I saw alot of 16:9 monitors on Newegg (I don't keep up with LCDs), but I didn't know they were actually taking over 16:10. I thought it was just a play on the whole "oh, look at my 1920x1080 true HD resolution!" thing. That, and wider monitors are apparently cheaper to make.

 

[Spyhop]

16:9 seems like a step backwards to me.

 

[masta.g.86]

Indeed.

16:10 provides a more "natural" viewing aspect ratio over 16:9, especially for those who are migrating from 4:3 displays.

 

[Princess Garnet]

16:9 seems like a step backwards to me.

Exactly. I hope to one day move to an LCD, but as of right now, that would most likely be a 2560x1600 display. I obviously won't go with 1680x1050, as that's more of a lateral at best, but I see it as less, having less pixels and vertical space than I do now, and will seem smaller, as well having just that one resolution (I realize all LCDs do, but it still counts in this comparison). As for 1920x1200, engh, it's basically just my 1600x1200 wide. I like to go big(ger than that) when I upgrade. The thing is, 2560x1600 displays are still sort of limited, and expensive (though I'd have to settle with expensive anyway, since I will not go the TN panel route either). If 16:9 takes over, I fear those displays will never get more mainstream, except maybe in the closest incarnation through this 16:9 ratio, which would be 2560x1440.

I will not move to a 2560x1440 display. I always felt some middle ground between 4:3 and 16:9 would be ideal, but I'd have moved to 16:9 eventually, inevitably. I like my vertical real estate, and if it gets any wider, I'll end up with a monitor double the width, with barely any more vertical resolution, than what I have now. I may as well just add a second monitor of what I already got at that rate.