8:5.

>>21241405

the one with the highest resolution

2:1

16:9 and tile windows vertically.

16:10 master race reporting.

what kind of work?
is it artistic work (rendering, photo editing, music production)?
business work (spreadsheets, word processing, presentations with the end goal of using a projector)?
or coding, perhaps?
can the 16:9 be rotated to 9:16?

you should be more specific if you're going to ask stupid questions.
saged, reported, and hidden.

>>21241420
This nigga right here.

>>21241405
235:100

16:10 > 4:3 > ... >16:9

5:4, 4:3, 16:10.
16:9 loses too much vertical real estate.

>>21241449
>implying that ratio can't be reduced

4:3 since it will have more vertical resolution than 16:9.

1600x1200 > 1920x1080

>>21241450
i wouldn't put 16:9 on the bottom of the list. with larger monitors (1920*1080) it's perfectly fine. the 2:1 VAIO p, for example.

1920x1440 masterrace reporting in

4:3 for work
16:9 for movies and games
16:10 is the zone of shit

if you don't gaymen or watch movies, 16/9 and 16/10 are absolutely nonsense.
but the industry forces people to use those shitty aspect ratios and poor resolution (1080p is a shitty resolution for anything above 17"). because PROFIT.

>>21241405

5:4

>>21241500
If you can direct me to a cheap 1600x1200 LCD I'll buy it.
Cheap being $100-$150.

>not having a 4:1 monitor
>2011

>>21241473

1920x1080 portrait > 1600x1200

>>21241512
they don't exist.
thank manufacturers.

You'll have to pry my 5:4 from my cold dead hands to get it.

8:5 > 4:3 > 16:9

i remember more than ten years ago, they were selling 1600x1200 19" CRT. and screen resolutions have barely improved since then.
LCD monitors and laptop batteries are the worst kind of hardware when every other peace of your computer doubles its power every couple years.

I'm not sure what's so magical about 16:9 that makes a ratio awarding a little more vertical space is somehow shit.
Maybe I want a little more vertical space. Maybe I wish I could upgrade to 1600:1000
D: