16:9 or 16:10 Help Please

[Xarick]

My monitor died. So because my wife uses her monitor I had to go get a new one. It was a 19" 16:10 monitor doing 1440x900 res. Loved it for the most part. Since I was buying a new monitor I went bigger. I had to buy locally due to time constraints. I looked at best buy, frys, etc. Ended up with an acer p244w from costco on sale for $170. But when I was looking all I could find for the most part was 16:9 monitors. What is the deal here? I am wondering if I should look for a 16:10 and take this back after I get it.

 

[VirtualLarry]

16:10 monitors are a dying breed.

(Thankfully I got in on a deal on some KDS 26" 16:10 1920x1200 LCDs for $250 some months ago. But it looks like KDS no longer sells LCDs. I would have liked to purchase another.)

 

[zerocool84]

Yep like Larry said they are dead. I prefer 16:10 as you get more vertical space but they are expensive compared to 16:9 monitors so I picked up a 16:9.

 

[0roo0roo]

doesn't matter, it isn't like one standard is special. it just matters what size it is in reality. a 16:9 19" is about as tall as 15" 4:3 which is ridiculously short screen height. 16:10 is only a little better but if u had to choose between the two obviously the 16:10 would be better for anything other than a tv. most simply wide screen requires much higher diagonal spec to be usable. a 19" lcd 4:3 is almost as tall as a 24" 16:9. height matters in most desktop use. squashed screen is just cramped. forget about the aspect ratio, just go for a diagonal spec that is big enough not to be cramped.

 

[Winterpool]

Well, it can matter -- depending on what sort of work you do, how you like your desktop sorted, what dimensions are more relevant to your visualising / organising / editing. Many of us like having more vertical pixels if we're doing top-down oriented stuff (document-editing, vertically-oriented images and designs, some web pages, etc).

On the other hand, the less 'wide' your display, the thicker the black bars (letterboxing) will be when you watch widescreen videos, particularly epic cinematic content that's much wider than 16:9 / 1.78:1 (a lot of 'big' movies are 2.39:1 v 1.78:1 for an HDTV). So when you're watching movies, that portion of your screen is essentially wasted space.

I personally prefer 16:10 for a computer screen and regret the takeover by 16:9 screens. IPS-panel displays had managed to be the exception, but it looks like 16:9 may be taking over them as well (Apple iMacs, NEC EA231WMi, Dell U2711). The 120 fewer vertical pixels are the factor keeping me from buying the NEC EA231WMi (1920x1080).