Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Sun 4th Sep 2011 12:39 UTC
Graphics, User Interfaces "Okay, it's been about one week and there are not much answers anymore, so it's time to thank everyone who participated, close this survey, and publish the results, along with some interpretation." Everything is released under Creative Commons CC0 license, so anyone interested, please help yourself.
Thread beginning with comment 488422
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:48 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

16:9 monitors replaced previous designs because of a perfect storm of LCD manufacturing conditions and mainstream buyers who are not discerning. I'm told wider panels and synergies with TV panels both save manufacturers money.

16:9 is the best aspect ratio for watching widescreen video. Anyone think it is best for personal computing?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Luminair
by ssokolow on Sun 4th Sep 2011 15:54 in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

Depends on what you're doing.

It gives you a better chance of being able to tile windows horizontally (as Aero Snap and Kwin 4.x's clone of it do) without the contents being narrower than designed for and, if you're watching newer movies or widescreen DVDs of older movies on your PC, you waste less space on letterboxing.

I've got 1280x1024 monitors and they always seem just a bit too narrow for me to use anything but the Xinerama monitor boundaries as tiling guides.

(There's also thw fact that you're seeing more and more apps like Inkscape which use the widescreen layout to give you a square or portrait viewport with a large palette of tool options down the side.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Comment by Luminair
by OSbunny on Sun 4th Sep 2011 19:37 in reply to "Comment by Luminair"
OSbunny Member since:
2009-05-23

I am so tired of reading this same complaint over and over again on the web. In just about every article on LCD monitors you see this same complaint repeated. It's almost as bad as that "but can it play crysis?" meme.

My take on this is that people need to stop repeating this over and over again. 16:9 is the new norm and that's that. Manufacturers are not going to change things just because a few people don't like it. Hell even software is now adapting to the widescreen format. Look at the dolphin file manager in KDE, Firefox killing the status bar, unity desktop in Ubuntu or Microsoft's work on Windows explorer in the upcoming Windows 8. All these changes are designed to make better use of more horizontal screen space while conserving vertical screen space.

Edited 2011-09-04 19:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Luminair
by manjabes on Mon 5th Sep 2011 16:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Luminair"
manjabes Member since:
2005-08-27

My problem with 16:9 displays is that it seems that every display manufacturer thinks something along the lines of "1920x1080 should be enough for everybody". There are still some 1920x1200 and even 2560x1600 displays lying around as remnants from the pre-Full-HD era, but every HD screen I've seen sold here in the desolate wastelands I live in has a resolution of 1920x1080 MAX. Nothing more. "Vertical space is for pussies! No matter if your screen diagonal is 22" or 42", 1080 vertical pixels is all you're gonna get, live with it!"

Edited 2011-09-05 16:45 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1