Why does AT prefer (1280x800) display over (1366x768).?

[GoodEnough]

What is superior about (1280x800) display ?

 

[GoodEnough]

Also, why is 16:10 better?
What ratio does 136x768 have?

 

[tynopik]

c: they both suck

 

[lxskllr]

16:10 is better cause you get widescreen with more vertical pixels. It's a good compromise between 16:9 and 4:3

 

[Ichinisan]

16:9 is fucking awful for computer work. It's just sad that display manufacturers want to save money by using the same panels they already use for television displays.

Even 16:10 isn't optimal for reading and working. I have to put my taskbar on the left side of the screen to make it just a little bit more tolerable. Even that little bit helps a *lot* - seriously.

27.5" viewable 1920x1200 16:10 here.

 

[Matthiasa]

Real computer work needs more then 1 screen anyways.

 

[brianmanahan]

thats freakin tiny, who wants a screen with rez that small?

 

[Ichinisan]

Real computer work needs more then 1 screen anyways.

2x 16:9 displays is almost worse than 1. It's like being extra, extra, extra wide. I have to do that at work.

I do make full use of it though. Glad Win7 and Win8 work OK with the taskbar on the left side. I also use my AeroSnap keyboard shortcuts a lot ([WinKey]+[ArrowKeys]).

 

[Matthiasa]

That is why at work I have 1 in portrait and the other in landscape.

 

[SKORPI0]

Obsolete displays, I've been using 2560x1440 2 1/2 years ago. :hmm:

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

Obsolete displayes, I've been using 2560x1440 2 1/2 years ago. :hmm:

Lol obsolete display. I've been using 2560x1600 for longer than that.

 

[Kaido]

27.5" viewable 1920x1200 16:10 here.

+1 for 1200

 

[Red Squirrel]

4:3 was still the best ratio for computers, too bad that's pretty much dead now.

A monitor that would be like 8000x6000 would be awesome. Resolutions have pretty much stagnated.

Would also be nice if operating systems had better multi monitor support. Linux completely blows at it, and even in Windows it can get flaky with 4 or more screens.

 

[NoTine42]

Might be an old link

http://tiamat.tsotech.com/4k-is-for-programmers

Use a 38" 4k tv (3840x2160) for a monitor

 

[brianmanahan]

Lol obsolete display. I've been using 2560x1600 for longer than that.

lol at both of you, ive been using gigawatt pixels for trillions of years!

LOL GUYS

 

[CoPhotoGuy]

4:3 was still the best ratio for computers, too bad that's pretty much dead now.

A monitor that would be like 8000x6000 would be awesome. Resolutions have pretty much stagnated.

Would also be nice if operating systems had better multi monitor support. Linux completely blows at it, and even in Windows it can get flaky with 4 or more screens.

Depends on what you do. For photography, 4:3 monitors aren't the best.

 

[Ruptga]

What is superior about (1280x800) display ?

They're both shit, unless we're talking about a five inch smartphone. Anything less than 1680x1050 is junk that should have been discontinued years ago. My desktop is 1920x1080, hardly impressive anymore but it's good enough to use more than one document/window at a time. I also have a crap laptop and I hate having to work on its 1366x display.

 

[GoodEnough]

On my 24" desktop LCD, I use 1920x1080 and have no complaints.

 

[Carson Dyle]

What I dislike about many wide screen monitors is the lack of height, both in pixels and in their physical size, either of which would be a step backward for me. I'm still using three 19" 1280x1024 5:4 monitors. As far as desk space is concerned, I could fit a widescreen in the middle, but then the alignment wouldn't be quite right. And three widescreens of the same resolution would too much for my desk. I think I might go to 6 x 1280x1024 some day, with a second row above the current one. I could probably pick up another three of the same monitor I have now for under $200.

 

[IEC]

Neither, both are poop for serious work. Not enough vertical pixels.

 

[RossMAN]

1920x1200 FTW

Is the Dell U2415 a suitable upgrade?

 

[n7]

16:9 is garbage, and vertical pixel height DOES matter.
768 = ancient CRT resolution from decades ago.

 

[ElFenix]

That is why at work I have 1 in portrait and the other in landscape.

vertical and horizontal.

 

[zinfamous]

Real computer work needs more then 1 screen anyways.

or "than."


I only have one display, and I still don't need it to find that "a."

 

[ElFenix]

16:9 is garbage, and vertical pixel height DOES matter.
768 = ancient CRT resolution from decades ago.

2560x1440 is the first 16:9 resolution that is work useful. when i moved from 19" CRTs to 20" LCDs i went from 1600x1200 to 1680x1050 and was constantly missing the vertical pixels.

i don't know how anyone uses the smaller ultrawide screens. like looking through a gun slit.