top | item 21949904

(no title)

That's awesome. 16:9 monitors only make sense for watching video, and are an abomination for pretty much any kind of work involving text.

I will be very happy when 4k 16:10 or 3:2 desktop monitors become widely available at an affordable price.

discuss

partiallypro|6 years ago

Microsoft's Surface has the perfect aspect ratio for screens (3:2), imo. Wide screen devices just look wrong. 16:10 is fine, but it still isn't quite right (this is also what Apple uses.)

stevehawk|6 years ago

I very reluctantly gave up my Thinkpad Yoga 2 for a new Surfacebook instead of sticking with Lenovo but I have no regretted the switch yet. Any chance you can recommend a USB C hub that retains a USB-C plug on it that will do DisplayPort out? I have a nice Anker USB-C hub but it only gives me HDMI out and even though it retains a USB-C plug on it it downgrades it to USB 3.0.

randyrand|6 years ago

For anyone wondering, 3:2 is equal to 16:10.67

somehnguy|6 years ago

Agreed. I got very used to 16:10 when I bought my monitors as a teenager. A couple of years ago I finally decided the 19" screens weren't cutting it anymore after 10 years of service and wanted to move to 24". Spent some time looking for 16:10 but ended up with 16:9 unfortunately. 16:10 monitors were way less common and way more expensive. And 144hz 16:10 monitors just don't even seem to exist. 16:9 feels so much more cramped than it should given the screen size.

BossingAround|6 years ago

To make a screen with any ratios other than 16:9 seems to be very expensive nowadays though. I personally would rather a laptop be cheaper than to have a 16:10 or 3:2 monitor.

Then again, it would probably be only visible in greater margin for the manufacturer :/.

unilynx|6 years ago

It's probably not that they're much more expensive to make, but there are much better economies of scale with a 16:9 ratio... the same panels work for TVs too