Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 31st May 2013 23:00 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems "Asus has just announced the cure for the common 20-something-inch 1080p display: a small TV-sized 31.5-inch monitor with a massive resolution of 3840x2160. Engadget reports that the Asus PQ321 display, which uses IGZO technology to reduce energy usage and thickness, includes DisplayPort and dual-HDMI input, integrated speakers, and an adjustable stand." The dread of 1366 and 1080p is being removed. Finally.
Thread beginning with comment 563372
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: IMO, this solves nothing.
by smashIt on Sat 1st Jun 2013 00:49 UTC in reply to "RE: IMO, this solves nothing."
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

16:9 is a crappy ratio for notebooks, but it makes perfect sense for very large desktop screens.


no, it doesn't
I own a 27" tft with a 2560x1440 resolution, and I still miss 4:3 screens

16:9 was just a cheap way to increase the nominal size, without delivering more physical area

Reply Parent Score: 5

Alfman Member since:
2011-01-28

smashit,

"16:9 was just a cheap way to increase the nominal size, without delivering more physical area"

When my old monitor died, I already knew that I wanted a 4:3 21in flat screen, but there wasn't a single new 4:3 for sale at our local computer stores. I ended up getting 16:9 due to the lack of choice, but I wasn't happy about it. Widescreens might be ok for movies, but I don't like them at all for the predominantly vertical document / source code editing I need to do. When I browse full screen most websites just can't make good use of those extra horizontal pixels. More often than not the extra horizontal pixels become useless white-space around a fixed width static content area. Expanding the content by zooming just exacerbates the lack of vertical pixels.

Reply Parent Score: 7

WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Huh. Not one commenter here so far likes 16:9 displays. I happen to like having lots of vertical space, it feels more natural to me than 4:3 displays. I don't really if it's 16:9 or 16:10, it is such a small difference in thend, but I would hate having to go back for the more rectangular shapes.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I have a Magic 23" 4:3 1600x1200 LCD monitor. Have to turn the head to follow mouse or look at something on the other side of the screen. Makes me giggle all time ;) A 32" screen would be a killer !

BTW, try the portrait orientation, one of my screen is in portrait mode to display Total Commander, PDF, MSDN or some source code. Mais work is on the 23" because large enough and can put two columns side by side : diff, debug with watches, etc...

Agree about internet browsing.

Kochise

Reply Parent Score: 3