Which monitor format do you prefer?

D

Dendros

I ask this because I still prefer the old format (5:4) instead of the modern and wider formats such as 16:9, 16:10, 21:9 or whatever. I prefer it simply because I could not get used to the newer formats.

I tried a 16:10 monitor but I did not find it useable for me (causes eye fatigue) so I put it aside and reinstalled the 5:4 monitor, that I'm OK with.

Anyway, I don't understand why wider formats are needed, 5:4 seems good enough to me even at higher resolutions such as 1600x1200.
But perhaps I'm weird.
 
I find a square monitor interesting. That would be format 1-1 if it existed.
Wide formats can be for playing movies.
High formats for editing text.
A 1-1 format would be good for both.
 
I got used to 16/9, I still have a 5/4. I do prefer 5/4 or 4/3.

Wider monitors make dickbars like the one of this forum more disturbing.

I like to have a good overview from up to down when reading and writing
text, also for not continuously scroll up and down.
 
I agree, monitors are not high enough.

Years ago, there was somthing like 2560x1680 (but for twice the price of 2560x1440). Now these don't exist at all, anymore. But what you can get is some 3440x1440 or even 3560x1440, and that is now WQHD! Curved, obviousely. (The 2560 x 1440, which was WQHD earlier, is now called QHD.)

It just doesn't figure out, they are not high enough. And when pivoting two of them, then that is too high. :(

Given what is available (and affordable), 2560x1440 seems still the best choice. And they are usually IPS. The last days I was looking at a TN type panel, and those colors are so extremely shitty, I wanted to shout out loud. (It's not noticeable when watching videos, but I tend to discern my xterms by the distinct hue of the background, and that didn't work at all.)
 
I would have agreed with all of you that a monitor closer to square was more usable, until recently.

Now I have got a bloody big TV, wide screen at 3840x2160 res, as a monitor. It is good enough that I can have two or three windows laid out horizontally.

In fact, I would not want the monitor taller. With a bit of arthritis, I cannot tilt my head too high.
 
I read somewhere that laptops will be going to a more square monitor from now on.

I think the wider screen was to accompany movies for home users. Movies aren't shot as 16:9 but close enough. Unfortunately it's not useful for programmers and sysadmins.
 
Some monitors can be flipped, from landscape to portrait. My office mate used to use a gigantic monitor, about 32" diagonal, in portrait mode. He had only a single window on it (without window decorations), and ran emacs in that window. I think he had about 300 lines x 150 columns. Sometimes he would flip it sideways, when he had to use multiple windows.
 
I have an IBM T43 with 14.1" aspect TFT square display at 1024x786 resolution and my X61 had a 15.1 square screen same resolution.

They cramp my working configuration and work style with too little real estate for my desktop apps. The X61 was a great .mp3 player, I use the T43 to type on when I sit my recliner and it's at 29 days uptime.

I like the W520 16:9 aspect screen at 1600x900 resolution where I have room for my apps open and to work best of all.
 
twm has nice "functions" that can be bound to keys for modifying the shape of
a window, so that you get maximum number of lines or of columns:

f.fullzoom
f.topzoom
f.bottomzoom
f.leftzoom
f.rightzoom
f.zoom
f.horizoom
 
SirDice said:
1600x1200 is 4:3.
Click to expand...
Screen resolution is not the same as aspect ratio...


Never really cared about aspect ratio... I still remember the boob tubes from 1990s, the kind that got hot and required a good whack to get going. I like the modern 16:9, 16:10 and ultra-wide stuff. For me, the important stuff is not the aspect ratio, but the pixel backlight, and the option to be smart about the contrast of my desktop theme. I don't like when there's too much white on my screen. But I do like hi-res screens.
 
Monitors don't matter to me, I can adjust windows.
TV: different story. "wide mode wide mode zoom 5:4" trying to get decent picture without stupid black bars or cut off heads.
 
I used to prefer the 5:4, until I discovered the wide (ultra wide) formats. My Dell Ultrasharp is 34" wide and has a resolution 3440x1440. I wish sometimes it were taller but I would not trade the width. If I could fit a 49" (Samsung?) on my desk, I would. Much prefer this than multiple monitors. My personal preference. If I only worked at a terminal (cli, BSD, Linux), then 5:4 would be fine.
 
I don't fuss over any single monitor too much. I'm using at least three at any time—some are wide, some are not.

I like it this way because it's much easier to replace or upgrade monitors when no single one of them is particularly advanced or expensive.
 
Dendros said:
… I still prefer the old format (5:4) …
Click to expand...

5:4 for my 405-line (System A) Philips type 520A/15.

4:3 for the two-inch display in my 625-line Casio TV-400, which I'll not upgrade. It will probably gather dust until the day I die :)

For computing, I prefer widescreen, it suits my use of KDE Plasma (e.g. the second screenshot under <https://forums.FreeBSD.org/threads/8877/post-516180>) with columns of titles.

My main display, at 1,920 x 1,080, is not as wide as I'd like for Thunderbird, which I have in vertical view with the folder pane and message pane.

Is 16:9 still the most commonplace aspect ratio for computer displays? : AskTechnology
 
Dendros said:
… I tried a 16:10 monitor but I did not find it useable for me (causes eye fatigue) …
Click to expand...

In the 1990s my department had just one extraordinarily large display. Not widescreen, just a large CRT.

Compared to what's available nowadays, it's small but back in the 1990s: as much as I wanted to love the large display, I couldn't. The ranges of eye movement from left to right were greater then (with classic Mac OS) than they are now with a wider display; the fatigue came from the combination of width + desktop environment.
 
True a display should not fatigue the eyes. That's way i use laptops only for short moment.
Also on a laptop the keyboard fatigues your fingers more than a regular keyboard.
 
vigole said:
Cat-friendly
Click to expand...

<https://photos.app.goo.gl/wKSCQtUWy1c4XYd4A>, which reminds me, back in the 1970s, when colour TV was a novelty in the UK, the optimal viewing angle for a child was to place the face directly against the screen and enjoy the dots:

1625918872741.png
 
  • Thanks
Reactions: a6h
grahamperrin said:
which reminds me, back in the 1970s, when colour TV was a novelty in the UK, the optimal viewing angle for a child was to place the face directly against the screen and enjoy the dots:
Click to expand...
Which reminds me, one decade forward in the 1980s, when they used to produce marvellous novel TV series in the UK:

BBC 2 The Computer Programme 1982:
www.imdb.com

The Computer Programme (TV Series 1982– ) ⭐ 7.4 | Documentary

25m
www.imdb.com www.imdb.com
Download link:

Internet Archive: Digital Library of Free & Borrowable Books, Movies, Music & Wayback Machine

archive.org archive.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top