This is what Anandtech.com looks like on my new monitor.

[RossMAN]

Nerds, what do you think of this post?

Please don't buy into the ridiculous 16:10 just for the sake of it being 16:10 hype.

The 30" monitors aren't "1600p" in the sense that 1080p -> 1440p follows. They're just 1440p with 160 extra vertical pixels (i.e. no horizontal increase).

If you want the extra physical screen size go for it, but unless you have an application that somehow actually requires quite specifically more vertical pixel space, it's a huge increase in price for only 11% more pixels.

To put it in perspective, the 409600 extra pixels you gain are only equivalent to a single 853x480 screen (480p wide). If you want to pay multiple hundreds of dollars for that, go for it, but personally I can't see the value statement that everyone tries to call upon. If it's really going to be about "value," I'd personally rather spend the money buying a second screen, even at "only" 1080p (2073600 pixels, or 406% more than what's gained from going from 16:9 to 16:10 at 1440p).

There is no inherent value in 16:10 as a ratio over 16:9. The value is in if you have a use case where the particular vertical resolution of one screen is significantly more fit than another screen. Personally, as a programmer, I find it to be ridiculous almost every time someone brings it up. Short of particular CAD/CAM software and similar programs with no multi-monitor support for their tool panels, there's very little where the pixel gain of same horizontal pixel width but different aspect ratio monitors is very meaningful unless the price difference is also comparable. And, quite simply, if 16:10 at 1920x1200 is fine for your use case, then so is 16:9 at 2560x1440.

Now, taste is a completely different matter. If somehow the form factor of 16:9 aesthetically bothers you, then no more need be said. But I'm tired of people trying to come up with all of these inane "value" statements where there's simply nothing actually supporting it for common use cases: even most professional ones.

Personally I'm thankful for 16:9 as a tv ratio, because I remember when all of my monitors were 4:3, and buying a 24" widescreen monitor was easily $800-1200+, unless you were buying a used CRT. Yes, you would get 16:10 when you bought those, but I'll take being able to afford multiple 16:9s over that kind of premium any day.

FYI, a 1920x1200 screen is also only 11% more (230400) pixels than a 1920x1080 screen. Those extra 120 vertical pixels combine to be the equivalent of a 640x360 screen (not even a 640x480 screen). The only time 16:10 has a value statement over an equivalent 16:9 is if the price is within that percent difference, or if you literally have a use case where those extra vertical pixels are make or break.

 

[Farang]

White is right imo. Helps to offset that massive, long, and hard black thing in the middle of it all.

twss

 

[Ichinisan]

Nerds, what do you think of this post?

I didn't read it yet, but I know from experience that 16:9 is not an optimal aspect ratio for a computer. It was never meant to be. Display manufacturers simply wanted to save money by using the same panels they already produce for televisions.

16:10 exists for a reason. 1920x1200 allows content producers to display 1920x1080 16:9 content at 1:1 resolution (no scaling) along with editing controls that don't cover the video content. Even 16:10 isn't optimal for web browsing, but it's noticeably better than 16:9! It's also an excellent compromise when you're displaying 4:3 content. Less screen space is wasted and the 4:3 content appears significantly larger on a 16:10 display vs 16:9.

 

[ShadowOfMyself]

Dafuq, I didnt even know there were 21:9 monitors out

Looks a bit too wide... Though our peripheral vision is also wider than 16:9 so Im not sure, it might just be the case of not being used to it

Its funny though, I had a 4:3 screen FOREVER and never cared for all the widescreen hype, but then when I finally got a 16:9 and became used to it, I went back to look at the 4:3 and my mind was blown... How did I stare at this square shaped screen for so long and think it was fine?

So yeah, who knows, I might come to feel the same way about 16:9

 

[Vdubchaos]

I miss 16:10 monitors

x2

 

[CZroe]

Have you tried holding the Windows logo key and tapping the right arrow on your keyboard?

Aero-snap right?

CTRL + ALT + Right will rotate 90-degrees clockwise with some video drivers, if that's what you meant.

 

[Anonemous]

Nerds, what do you think of this post?

eh, I thought he said it's based on his preference and doesn't really offer any argument. I personally like more pixels for monitor size so I can see more things. So 16:10 is good for me.

 

[Ichinisan]

Aero-snap right?

CTRL + ALT + Right will rotate 90-degrees clockwise with some video drivers, if that's what you meant.

AeroSnap. If he didn't know that shortcut before, he can probably figure out to try Win+LeftArrow and Win+UpArrow to see what it does.

 

[SKORPI0]

Nah I got this Dell version. I wouldn't touch an LG monitor for a PC.

Pics of you with Dell monitor and holding a sign "Yes ATOT I own this monitor" or shens. :hmm:

 

[amdhunter]

Since both of my Dell U2709Ws drop their picture randomly and sometimes multiple times in a row, I really have to beg to differ about Dell's quality. Also consider that these monitors cost around $800 each.

Damn, I refuse to get anything but Dell. Service is beyond awesome and I've never had one break down. I just saw this and fell in love with it.

 

[preslove]

My family and I have had much better luck with dell than apple, lol.

 

[Anonemous]

Yep still using a 7 year old dell laptop E1505 as a file server. They last quite a while.