The Pentium 4 has a long pipeline. That "big" pipeline is why the CPU failed. Lets not use a "one size fits all" mentality when it comes to what enthusiasts want.
No it's not. You're saying you care about 9% of your screen more than the other 91%. Plus, you're just saying "ARGH OMG HEIGHT". That's not a really good example of why it's better. It's an example of how you can't articulate what it actually gets you. What does that height get you? So instead of professing that height is what you want, how about you explain to me what that height gets you instead of getting your panties in a bunch.
I'm saying neither is better, you're saying one is better than the other. I'm asking you to prove it and explain what you do where those 120 lines matter. Enlighten us. Don't just whine.
there's no need to be that dense or binary...
1200 pixels is MORE than 1080 pixels, i'm not comparing a different unit of measurement like you are with penitums, the correct analogy is a 2ghz pentium4 is faster than a 1.5ghz pentium4, which is obviously true as you have more of the same unit
50fps is more than 45fps, there is nothing around this fact, but nobody said 45fps (or 1080 pixels) is suddenly obsolete
do i have to explain why 'more is better' even though that explains itself?
your windows taskbar is a fixed amount of pixels height, your browser addressbar is a fixed amount of pixels height, every website you go to has designs that are a fixed amount of pixels height.... see the problem? things take up a FIXED amount of space on the screen, so if you have a larger amount of pixels on your screen, you can fit more on it, by definition this = better
now it seems in our society, people are taught to have an inferiority complex, companies are always pressuring users into getting the better faster stronger device every year, or to compare their neighbor's house/car/wife/posessions
life is full of compromises, in fact i actually cant stand seeing people asking 'yo what's the best gfx card' or 'what's the best laptop for gaming', why? because the best is like $5,000+ & completely irrelevant to that person's needs, nor were they planning to spend that much
1920x1080 is still 'fine', just because it's relatively 'worse' than 1920x1200 doesnt mean it's bad:
-it still fits 1080p video content 1:1
-it's still rectangular which is more pleasant than square
-it's still 1920 wide, so that old saying of 'fit 2 word documents side by side' applies
-the low end IPS variant has become so cheap that you can find it in so many 20-24" 1080p monitors, so there are great low cost choices
-games are well tested & usually are correct unless they're really old 4:3 games
so if 1:1 scaling is a big concern (& it should be if you watch blurays or console games), then
1920x1080 & 1920x1200 are in a league entirely of their own, where x1200 is only better if you have OS usage or old 1600x1200 games
everything else is junk with the 1:1 concern, especially the unfortunate 1680x1050 where not only do you end up with FOV issues in some games, but 1080p content is now blurry or cropped (notice how this is also 16:10, yet it's now 'must avoid' on my choices)