Which invention is more stuped?

[manimal]

autocorrect


/thread

 

[Chiropteran]

umm yes, actually most do

I don't, but good for you if you can read text that small.

also 16:10 and 16:9 have the same amnt of Horiz pixels at the same resoloutions so Hroiz scrolling is a non issue and i have no idea what you are talking as there is no more H space on a 1920x1080 display vs a 1920x1200 one (unless running in portrait mode)

Uh, no, you are making a lot of assumptions. A ratio alone doesn't determine the number of pixels. 2048x1152 is a 16:9 resolution, and has more "H space" than 1920x1200.

If your whole argument is that 1920X1080 is worse than 1920X1200, well DUH. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize fewer pixels is worse. But given same or at least similar pixel counts there is nothing at all wrong with 16:9.

It's really better for most entertainment anymore because TV shows and movies are often released in that format. either you waste some of your precious pixels with black bars in 16:10, or you cut out some of the actual shot to fit it in without black bars. Sub optimal.

For gaming, as stupid as it is most games limit the vertical field of view so you get the same field of view vertically with either ratio, but 16:9 gives you slightly more horizontal view. Again, 16:10 is just sub optimal.

 

[Anubis]

which is why i said at the same resoloutions in my post,

 

[SlowSpyder]

The Most Useless Machine Ever

 

[Chiropteran]

The Most Useless Machine Ever

I want one.

 

[BurnItDwn]

No, they are not. The aspect is simply not suited to browsing the web and other things we use our computers for. 16:10 was used for computer displays first, and should have stuck around forever.

We're losing 16:10 PC displays because manufacturers are trying to maximize profit and consumers are ignorant about it.

I disagree provided there is ample vertical space except for extreme cases where there simply isn't enough room for a bigger monitor.

I used to have a nice 16:10 IPS.
I've also owned many 4:3 CRTs over the years.

I will agree that I like the 16:10 aspect ratio better, but the difference is not all that significant between the 2.

Also, 16:9 is bad for fullscreen browsing, yes, but, it's best to have enough extra resolution that you don't need a full screen for browsing.

 

[gorcorps]

Oh my fuck.

omf will replace omg from now on

:thumbsup:

 

[T_Yamamoto]

The Most Useless Machine Ever

Looks like fun

 

[CZroe]

1. 16:9 desktop displays are dumb because 8:5 is better for web browsing and productivity apps like Excel. It requires less vertical scrolling.

Why don't you just turn it and make it a 9x16 display if vertical scrolling bothers you that much.

Anyway, you are totally wrong about what makes 8x5 (16x10) better for PCs: It's designed so that 16x9 content still has room for playback/editing controls that don't obfuscate the content AND because operating systems often reserve vertical space for things like the Windows Taskbar or OS-X Dock.

 

[Howard]

Your use of "8:5" just to be "right".

 

[Red Squirrel]

I say 16:9 displays. Buttom PSUs are silly as well, but the trend of going wider and wider on displays is just stupid. I think there's even a wider one out now. I don't think it's 16:8, it's some other oddball value. WHY?! 4:3 and 5:4 is the best for computers, just give us more resolution but keep the aspect ratio! But nooooo they have to go wide because it's cheaper to make and makes people think their monitor is bigger. Wide is basically the equivalent 4:3 or 5:4 monitor with part of the top missing. Instead of getting a 1280x1024 display, you now get a 1280x768 display. And it's still considered the same size, and they can charge more for it because it's "wide screen HD!!!1!"

I would love to see a 4:3 display that is like 1600x1200 but having that much pixel real estate is a thing we'll probably never see on a real computer monitor for a while. I know macs have good screens but I'm talking about real computers.

Don't get me started on how much wide screens waste desk space too when you want a multi monitor setup.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Stuped is a variant of stupid that is akin to being 'ultra-stupid'. In order for something to be 'stuped', it has to be really, really stupid.

The choices are:

1. 16:9 desktop displays are dumb because 8:5 is better for web browsing and productivity apps like Excel. It requires less vertical scrolling.

2. Cases with bottom mounted power supplies. Damn I hate those. All they do is suck in dust into your system and make a mess out of your cabling.

3. Your sumbmission.

1. wider is better, with wider I can have spreadsheet and web page side by side on one monitor. I'd even go as far to say that 16:9 = not wide enough

2. there's this thing called cable management, its really not that hard, and nearly any modern case that has bottom mounted power supply and is worth buying will make cable routing behind the motherboard extremely easy.

Also theres this amazing invention called a dust filter, or you can also always just flip the PSU upside down if you were too cheap and bought a case that doesn't have a filter specifically for the bottom mounted PSU.

 

[Ichinisan]

I disagree. IMO it's a million times more annoying if you have horizontal scroll bars on a web page than vertical. Pages are normally designed so you need to scroll up and down, but horizontal resolution is simply assumed to be there. Wider wide-screen is better for the web.

I mean, do you use your iphone in portrait mode to browse the web?

A 1920x1200 display has the same horizontal space as a 1920x1080 display.

When displaying 1920x1080 content, you can show every pixel and still have room for editing/playback controls without covering anything. For content producers, that kicks ass.

[edit]
Typing on my phone is getting increasingly slow / difficult.

 

[Bignate603]

The term "stuped"

I agree. The term stuped is stupid.

 

[FelixDeCat]

I agree. The term stuped is stupid.

So is the term "sumbmission." That was stuped!

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Flagging videos on YouTube is a pretty stuped invention.

A 1920x1200 display has the same horizontal space as a 1920x1080 display.

When displaying 1920x1200 content, you can show every pixel and still have room for editing/playback controls without covering anything. For content producers, that kicks ass.

Not to mention with the prevalence of formats like 960 Grid you really don't need more horizontal...