Aquinus
Resident Wat-man
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2012
- Messages
- 13,148 (2.91/day)
- Location
- Concord, NH, USA
System Name | Apollo |
---|---|
Processor | Intel Core i9 9880H |
Motherboard | Some proprietary Apple thing. |
Memory | 64GB DDR4-2667 |
Video Card(s) | AMD Radeon Pro 5600M, 8GB HBM2 |
Storage | 1TB Apple NVMe, 4TB External |
Display(s) | Laptop @ 3072x1920 + 2x LG 5k Ultrafine TB3 displays |
Case | MacBook Pro (16", 2019) |
Audio Device(s) | AirPods Pro, Sennheiser HD 380s w/ FIIO Alpen 2, or Logitech 2.1 Speakers |
Power Supply | 96w Power Adapter |
Mouse | Logitech MX Master 3 |
Keyboard | Logitech G915, GL Clicky |
Software | MacOS 12.1 |
16:10 was a thing way before 16:9 was. Either way, I appreciate the statement that you've only ever used one. We know (and hopefully like) what we've used.I went from 1280x1024 to 1920x1200. Skipped 1080/16:9 so I have no comparison to go by. Sorry
It's pretty minimal though. What do you actually feel that you're losing by this? It sure is less space but the real question is if it really makes a difference or not.Here are some comparative images. What people are losing with 16:9 displays:
Once again, I will pose this question to you. What do those 120 lines get you and is it enough to justify saying that 16:10 is better than 16:9? I think in reality few people really will care, even more so if it means getting a 1440p or 4k display. So considering the market, I think clinging on to an older standard for the sake of a few extra vertical lines at a particular horizontal resolution is a little insane since most panels now are 16:9 including those with resolutions north of 1920x1200.16:10 is for me. Extra height is what I like about 16:10 so I choose it over 16:9. 16:9 is not bad. but I prefer 16:10
It's worth noting I feel like I rarely get black lines with 1920x1080. Most video I watch will fill the entire panel. Either way, I still don't think either argument for or against is valid to say one is better than the other. The simple fact is that there is a lot of 16:9 content and support. It's the standard, it's where everything is going. They're not better or worse, they're just different. One has been adopted more than the other.
What's so difficult about understanding such simple sentence as "I can't see shit on 16:9 screen."? I just fucking can't, it's vertically so thin it's disturbing to my eyes. It looks like crap in games, and I don't even want to imagine how would I do ANY work on such monitor. I'd go apeshit within 5 minutes. No window of reasonable size will fit on that.
So you're crying over 120 lost lines? How about looking at the other 1080 of them? 120 is a lot skinnier than the rest of the display. That's not an excuse, that's being whiny. I'm not asking you to look at 1920x120 (yes, that's 120, not 1200) because that would be skinny.
Try that at 1440p or 4k (if hardware could drive it) and I'm sure you'd change your mind.Why would you want less choices???
If you think about it, you can definitely benefit from the extra screen estate when playing sports games like FIFA/PES and FPS games. (I don't play these though)
Last edited: