Why are 4:3 monitors disappearing?

[Warp01]

I prefer them for desktop PCs, because you are very near the display.

16:10/9 resolutions are good for TVs and movies as you are a little way away.


Regards

 

[tommo123]

market forces i guess.

i always bought LCDs in 16:9/10 ratios and never 4:3. preferr it tbh. guess enough people do the same to make 4:3 less appealing to produce.

either that, or the manufs save money in some way by having them be similar in a way to TVs (maybe why i've noticed more 16:9 monitors lately over 16:10)

 

[WicKeD]

More screen real estate....You can see more, gives you a true field of vision as we see in widescreen.

 

[tcsenter]

More screen real estate....You can see more, gives you a true field of vision as we see in widescreen.

Which is great for watching movies and playing games, things that were already done on other devices. There are still a lot of computer-only work types that don't benefit at all and are diminished by widescreen aspect ratios. e.g. your common business productivity...viewing/editing/creating documents, desktop publishing, photo work, et. al.

 

[Jaskalas]

Which is great for watching movies and playing games, things that were already done on other devices. There are still a lot of computer-only work types that don't benefit at all and are diminished by widescreen aspect ratios. e.g. your common business productivity...viewing/editing/creating documents, desktop publishing, photo work, et. al.

The supposed downside does not compute. Editing is also nicer with more screen to work with.

 

[Lonyo]

Which is great for watching movies and playing games, things that were already done on other devices. There are still a lot of computer-only work types that don't benefit at all and are diminished by widescreen aspect ratios. e.g. your common business productivity...viewing/editing/creating documents, desktop publishing, photo work, et. al.

Try putting two documents next to each other on a single 4:3 monitor, then try again on a widescreen monitor.
Win 7 also (finally) has a feature where you can throw things to the side and they will automatically take up exactly half the screen.

Sure, with two 4:3/5:4 monitors you can achieve the same result, but it requires two monitors.

 

[jvroig]

The supposed downside does not compute. Editing is also nicer with more screen to work with.

Agree mostly, except perhaps for general programming tasks. A wider screen will show less lines of code in the editor of choice. Of course, in return it shows longer lines, but in practice I find that most lines never exceed 120 chars (my limit, taking into account the side panel in the IDE), and seeing more lines ("taller" screen instead of wider) would be better.

But that's just a very trade-specific thing. For most purposes, it does seem to me that widescreen monitors are probably more useful than their square-ish brethren.

 

[Qbah]

Agree mostly, except perhaps for general programming tasks. A wider screen will show less lines of code in the editor of choice. Of course, in return it shows longer lines, but in practice I find that most lines never exceed 120 chars (my limit, taking into account the side panel in the IDE), and seeing more lines ("taller" screen instead of wider) would be better.

But that's just a very trade-specific thing. For most purposes, it does seem to me that widescreen monitors are probably more useful than their square-ish brethren.

Hmm.. the highest common 4:3 resolution I know is 1600x1200... and it has the same number of lines as a 1920x1200 monitor. The next standard 4:3 is 2048x1536 and if you need that many lines you can get a 30" Dell with 2560x1600. So I don't really see any advantages of a 4:3 screen.

If you really need this aspect, you can run it with "keep aspect ratio" and you will get black bars on the sides. But it's silly... A WS resolution offers more than a 4:3 resolution and not the other way round.

 

[Shilohen]

Agree mostly, except perhaps for general programming tasks. A wider screen will show less lines of code in the editor of choice. Of course, in return it shows longer lines, but in practice I find that most lines never exceed 120 chars (my limit, taking into account the side panel in the IDE), and seeing more lines ("taller" screen instead of wider) would be better.

But that's just a very trade-specific thing. For most purposes, it does seem to me that widescreen monitors are probably more useful than their square-ish brethren.

It depends how you see it. 16:10 and 16:9 allowed larger screens, saving modern IDE ihmo as you can now place various tools on both side of the code editor and have enough spaces for 120 character (which is my limit as well). Now, if the screen would be 4:3 and as large I could agree with you, but I don't see it that way.

Your point of view is like if the width was kept constant and the height reduced to reach 16:10 / 16:9, mine is that the height was kept constant but the width stretched to reach it. Who is right, if one even is, is subjective imho.

 

[jvroig]

@Qbah
Yes, but unfortunately it doesn't happen like that when you compare the same size monitors, for example a 19" square vs a 19" wide.

So when you are buying a monitor, say a 17" or 19", and you see two units, one 4:3 and the other 16:9/10, then the other one will be "taller" and will display more lines if it matters to you.

 

[jvroig]

Your point of view is like if the width was kept constant and the height reduced to reach 16:10 / 16:9, mine is that the height was kept constant but the width stretched to reach it. Who is right, if one even is, is subjective imho.

I agree with your analysis. It is indeed very subjective. When lots of real estate are needed, and you have side panels on the left and right, then widescreen wins hands-down. But when the obsession (so to speak) is simply number of lines on the screen (when using a rather uncomplicated editor and you just want to see as much code as possible, e.g. not Eclipse), you can sometimes miss having those square monitors.

Not that I favor squares. I merely chimed in to say that they can be useful when you wish you could see more lines of code at a time.

 

[WhoBeDaPlaya]

OP, do you mean 5:4?

 

[crisium]

No, I think he means 4:3. There are 1600x1200 monitors out there, but they are dying out. Even 16:10 is heavily losing ground to 16:9. 1920x1200 is definitely better than 1600x1200, but 1920x1080 is debatable mainly because for internet usage, vertical pixels are far more important.

 

[Phil1977]

Only screens left on the market are 5:4 with 1280 x 1024 pixels and 19" size.

e.g. AOC makes a 19" with 2ms and its very affordable. This 5:4 screen his very tall. I think you need a 24" 16:10 LCD to get the same vertical size.

I used one in a internet caffee the other day, and for surfing the net they are awesome. The screen felt huge compared to my widescreen...

1600 x 1200 can be found 2nd hand but still cost a fortune for what you are getting.

 

[tcsenter]

Try putting two documents next to each other on a single 4:3 monitor, then try again on a widescreen monitor.
Win 7 also (finally) has a feature where you can throw things to the side and they will automatically take up exactly half the screen.

And...why would anyone want to do that other than, say, a forensic examiner of some kind (handwriting/art/currency expert) analyzing/comparing two samples?

I didn't say comparing two documents side-by-side. The written page pretty much universally still follows the same format. Books, newspapers, and other printed material does not put content across two separate pages, except when you get to the bottom of the previous page. i.e. you're only working with one page at any given time (99.99% of the time).

It is a portrait world, not a landscape world (look at your printer paper).

 

[Phil1977]

I think what he meant is that as soon as you want to have 2 items on the screen, widescreen is the way to go.

For a single document I would also use a 5:4 19" LCD.

But on that screen its really hard to have a document + a movie or TV show running.

On a widescreen this is no issue. You can have a PDF on 2/3s of the left side and a calculator and media player on the right side.

I could never do that on my 19" 5:4 when I had it. I always had to switch tasks...

 

[crisium]

And...why would anyone want to do that other than, say, a forensic examiner of some kind (handwriting/art/currency expert) analyzing/comparing two samples?

I didn't say comparing two documents side-by-side. The written page pretty much universally still follows the same format. Books, newspapers, and other printed material does not put content across two separate pages, except when you get to the bottom of the previous page. i.e. you're only working with one page at any given time (99.99% of the time).

It is a portrait world, not a landscape world (look at your printer paper).

I hope you're joking. Just as a university student I can tell you how important putting two word documents side-by-side is for my work. You lack the creativity to see the use in this?

 

[Zargon]

just portrait a widescreen pivot style

 

[tcsenter]

I could never do that on my 19" 5:4 when I had it. I always had to switch tasks...

Its why we've had televisions for like 1000 years.

 

[Phil1977]

Its why we've had televisions for like 1000 years.

Well my TV doesn't have a calculator or media player or any other application... And TVs are also widescreen And I really don't want a big TV next to my computer.

Widescreen LCDs are very suitable for multi tasking. Windows gadgets also work really well on widescreen LCDs.

If you are a writer however and that's all you do just buy a 19" 5:4. There are plenty around, no need to complain!

 

[tcsenter]

I hope you're joking. Just as a university student I can tell you how important putting two word documents side-by-side is for my work. You lack the creativity to see the use in this?

Unless you're doing some comparison work as I said, there is no "importance" to it. I suppose there may be some convenience in having to click a mouse or press a key 50% fewer times, but otherwise, its a non-issue.

 

[Phil1977]

Unless you're doing some comparison work as I said, there is no "importance" to it. I suppose there may be some convenience in having to click a mouse or press a key 50% fewer times, but otherwise, its a non-issue.

The matter of importance is personal and you can't make such a statement.

You can say that for yourself this is not important. And that's fair enough. A 5:4 screen suits you better.

But you can't just say that it's not a issue for others.

People use things in different ways. Widescreen LCDs are very popular and software has made changes to use the extra space on the sides.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

just portrait a widescreen pivot style

-Damn straight. I don't understand why, with accelerometers being used in phones and other mobile devices to switch between landscape and portrait, we don't have a nice widescreen monitor to do this (with the requisite stand etc).

"But it doesn't have enough vertical space!" rotate the monitor to portrait and you'll have more vertical space than you'd know what to do with.

"OMG but now I can't enjoy my movies or games!" Ok rotate it back to landscape.

Wow I should go draft a poorly written, vague and confusing but just barely enforcable patent for this technology!

 

[ViRGE]

market forces i guess.

i always bought LCDs in 16:9/10 ratios and never 4:3. preferr it tbh. guess enough people do the same to make 4:3 less appealing to produce.

either that, or the manufs save money in some way by having them be similar in a way to TVs (maybe why i've noticed more 16:9 monitors lately over 16:10)

This is actually a really good answer; it basically hits the nail on the head.

1) From a consumer standpoint, consumers like widescreen monitors because they make their movies and TV shows occupy more screen real estate. And it's not so much that people are watching a ton of movies, it's just that most people freak out at letterboxing.

2) They're definitely cheaper to produce. Per inch of diagonal space, the less square the monitor the less total area it has. A 20" 4:3 is bigger than a 20" 16:10 which is bigger still than a 20" 16:9. Manufacturers had a strong incentive to go wide to cut costs.

Ultimately you're going to have to pry my 20" 4:3 IPS monitor out of my cold, dead hands. Especially if 16:10 goes away and all we're left with are those silly 16:9 monitors.

 

[tcsenter]

And Bejeweled looks better on 4:3. That oughta be reason enough for anyone.