OSNews

Yep. Exactly. I just wish high-res 16:10 screens were easier to come by, but unfortunately they seem to be succumbing to inferior (for non-multimedia/video computer usage) "high definition" 16x9 displays (which, IMO, belong only in the living room to watch your TV and movies and play your home console video games on). But unfortunately, they're infesting every single device type being developed. All in the name of "multimedia" with the convenient buzzword "HD".

Gotta love bullshit buzzwords like "HD" stealing our vertical resolution--which, in my opinion, is the most important of all for computer work. So what if tiny bars are shown on the top and bottom of the screen while playing HD videos? You barely even notice them, if you even notice them at all.

In the end--I'll take more vertical space and less horizontal space for my reading pleasure, thanks. It's much easier on the eye, and is actually possible to read. Just imaging a giant book that is not separated into columns... that would be so difficult to read it's not even funny.

Edited 2012-06-04 05:41 UTC

Such really high res (more than 1080p, I presume) screens were always "succumbing" to "inferior" types - in the past to much more inferior types, actually.

The situation is much better than it used to be; be happy that the "HD" means widespread popularisation of quite high res screens, that you can have them very inexpensively, funded by economies of scale (which also makes large multimon setups much more accessible; plus if one monitor in such setup is rotated 90 degrees...).

And if you want to go higher than that - well, such screens were always hard to come by, and expensive. So pay up, don't expect people "subsidizing" those just yet - they're happy with HD, so that's what production is geared for.
Alternatively, wait a short decade or so... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UHDTV (but I bet some will still be complaining in a similar way)

Edited 2012-06-04 07:51 UTC

I'm a developer and vertical space is very import.

My main screen is a ViewSonic VP2365WB in 1080x1920 mode. Any 80/20 split would need to be a top/bottom split or things would just look ugly and useless.

I also find this mode ideal for web browsing since I can see most of the page. It's also great for doing word processing work.

I've yet to see a review from someone running Metro on a widescreen monitor running in portrait mode.

Which is why iPad feels so usable. A screen of an "equivalent" 1366x768 laptop just doesn't cut it.

I often argue against Apple (in fact, I own 0 of their products) but I like that they can take step back and look how the technology fits a normal person before designing a device. Others seem follow the rule "more is better", which is not even true (sometimes "more"="still not enough" or "more"="pointless").

Way to not understand Elastic/Responsive Design. You are supposed to put new content in the empty space and/or increase the text size to suit.

That's ridiculous. Optimal line length is only about ~12 words, based on the arch the human eye can optimally scan without straining other muscles at average eye-desktop display distance. Increasing the font size to maintain this optimal line length at 1920pix width would require 36pix font height - which is pure insanity.

Adding additional content is easier said than done. Sure, you can fill up the whitespace with pointless junk like stock images or enlarged quotes, but they add absolutely nothing to the reading experience. Multiple columns, as some suggested, is unworkable as well, since it would require weird up/down eye movements, and would generally looks like ass.

Agreed. I'm amazed that some people don't get this.

On my 27" monitor browser windows typically use about 60% of the screen width. For some sites, such as those displaying large pictures, I'll maximise the window, but more often I find myself reducing the width even further.

Even spanning 60% of the screen width I find that a big block of text can be uncomfortable to read. I'll shrink it down so that the text width isn't any greater than it'd be in a paperback book. To me that makes a significant difference to my speed and enjoyment when reading.

I do the same in ebook readers, text editors, PDF viewers, and anything else where I'll be reading more than a page or two of text. Even for the simple task of consuming written words I'd find Metro's full screen limitations annoying and uncomfortable.

I'm amazed that some people don't get another thing...

Those who point out it's a "fault" of OSNews layout don't really propose "widescreen pages of non-wrapping text" as an alternative - but more, say, a multi-column (more than 2) layout, as is typical in "wide" print magazines.

Edited 2012-06-10 23:45 UTC