Because videos.

>>23758804

They're fairly cheap to mass produce. Also marketing buzzwords.

>dafuq

I hate widescreen monitors. I'm going to hold on to my 1280x1024 monitor as long as I possibly can. It's already seven years old and I had to replace the original power brick a few months ago.

>>23758852
My L551 is a miracle of the universe. It's been resting on my desk for 6 years, with about 16 working hrs/day average, and still no hiccups.

It even survived a drop to its face caused by a very naughty boy. It has some cracks on the frame, but other than that it's a beast, not even a single pixel lost.

They don't make 5:4s like this anymore, or at all. ;_;

>>23758852
1280x1024 is shit.
I switched from it to glorious 1080p and it's worth every penny spent on my shitty, yet still better monitor.

>>23758804
I don't know, I'm still using 1280x800.

Blu-ray.

>>23759014
Black-ray

>>23759029
Nigger-ray.

I also don't get the whole widescreen phenomenon

But 1080p isn't a "standard" it's a marketing buzzword that people buy into

honestly, 720p (1280x720) looks good enough on most panels

I hardly saw any difference on a 55" LCD

but you can fit a lot more on the screen and it's sharper

depends what your usage is I guess

still using a 19" 1440x900 tyris from frys that I got for $100 over 5 years ago

longer you wait > higher the prices drop

>mfw 24" LCD's will be $100 by the time I need to upgrade

I don't know. But I'm hoping apple and their retina bullshit can eventually get me a 1440 monitor on the cheap. Preferably before my 1200 goes kaput.

>>23759168
Stevie-Ray (vaughn)

>>23759047
Sting-ray!

Because its handy. More space on the desktop - easier to work with all the stuff one need for the job. Two widescreens - even more space.

>>23758852
No shit, I've got a 19" 1280x1024 with S=PVA panel that I bought years ago, this is god tier. Damn near 180 degree viewing angle on either axis no stuck pixels, no bullshit. And a ridiculously adjustable stand. Fuck this 16:9 bullshit. If it has to be widescreen, at least stick to 16:10, not some retarded low res TV bullshit.

>>23759075
I am using a 19" @ 1280x1024, and soon, I'll get a new CPU and connect another 17" @1280x1024. I can't wait.

I've got a 1280x1024 19" and a 1680x1050 22". Next upgrade will be a 2560x1600 30", nothing less.

>>23759075
Tyris master race! (well kind of) Mine sits next to my u2311h so the Tyris has a yellowish hue whenever I focus on it's color balance and and worse pixel density but it gets the job done. I'm thinking of upgrading my main monitor to one of those 27" Korean IPS monitors and upgrading GPU so I might have to let the 19" go to make room on my desk. ;_;

>>23759274
Not even 2560x1440?

>>23759249
nigga you don't need a CPU to compute graphics unless you're using onboard video

>>23759274
have you found any decently priced? I'm trying to find one myself..

>>23759332
>laughingwhores.tiff

>>23758804
Because it's full HD

I've ordered my 2560x1440 27" today.

feelsgoodman. giving my 1080p panel to my dad since I'm such a nice guy, and he loves playing Runescape.

1280x1024 is literally the worst thing.

I used a 1280x1024 monitor for almost 6 years, when i switched over to a 23" 1920x1080 monitor, I just about damn near cried at the space I had to work with.

I am thinking about getting a second one, since I seem to be running into problems with having room again.

1920x1440/77Hz master race reporting in

>>23759513
More like Cancer master race.

>>23759434
>full HD
Never has a marketing term so pissed me off as that one.

The real reason has to do with the manufacture process of the screens. The screens are cut from one large sheet of the material, and these sheets inevitably have defects in them. The size and shape of widescreen LCDs is the result of finding the shape that allows you to cut around the defects and produce the greatest amount of screens. With other screen dimensions, it is harder to cut up the sheet such that none of the defects end up in the screens without wasting a lot of the material. That is why the other dimensions that are not "1080p FULL HD™" are rarer and more expensive.

>>23759434
Yes, but as an earlier poster pointed out, 16:10 is a widescreen aspect ratio with a longer tradition on computers, and most such monitors are higher than TV HD resolutions anyway. Both of my monitors fall into this category, the first being 1920x1200, and the second 1680x1050. The first is a bit higher than 1080p, and the quite second significantly higher than 720p.

16:9 is an unnecessarily wide aspect ratio. Those monitors are so wide it looks silly, and scanning from left to right that far is a shitty way to read, so most windows won't be maximized on such displays anyway.

3840 x 2160

Master race

>>23758852
I use 1280x1024 and 1024x768 :> the 1280x1024 is 7 years old

>>23759549
>16:10
You mean 8:5?

>>23759538

Angry poorfag that cant afford to join the 1920x1080 master race?

I have a U2410 at the moment, but I'd like to see an Achieva Shimian with no dead pixels.

>>23758852
I had those retarded beliefs once as well

Sadly I don't have ohgodwhy.jpg here to describe my feelings

1280x800 master race.

What is the best 2560x1600 monitor for the price?
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Dell-UltraSharp-3008WFP-30-Widescreen-LCD-Monitor-Black-/130667931363?pt=Com
puter_Monitors&hash=item1e6c6a66e3
Is this a good one?

>>23759569
Nope. Although the ratio is reducible, it's not expressed that way in this context. My guess is that we got 16:9 from squaring the old computer monitor standard of 4:3, and 16:10 is a change monitor makers made way back in the day to reduce the extreme wideness of some monitors. '16:10' is a notation which carries embedded within it a glimpse of that tradition, and more importantly makes comparison easier for less-than-math-savvy shoppers.

If you are going to be a faggot and stay with 4:3, get a fucking 1600x1200 monitors you dumb fucks.

Eh, it looks nice enough and Bluray

>>23759640
>how is ratio wurk

>16:10 = 8:5
>6:3 = 1:2
Get it?

1400x900 here.
HP w1907 is pretty cool. Has great colors and is just the right size on my desk.

>>23759445
i don't know much about screens but i heard somebody say once that 1920x1080 and 1280x720 are the only native resolutions. Anything else has to be artificially stretched to the pixel size of the screen at the cost of more computing power. thoughts?

>>23759652
>it looks nice enough and Bluray
It's because of people like you we're stuck with 16:9 and not glorious 16:10.

>>23759640
> I can't into math

>>23759666
>>6:3 = 1:2
Obviously you don't. It's 2:1

1440x900
Dell S1909WX mastur raec hurr hurr.

>>23759679
Hey hey hey big guy calm down, I'd be using a 16:10 screen if Vidya and Movies looked good on them

CRT is a much better technology than LCD.

1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring

Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me /g/, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.

And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.

And before you start yapping about IPS panels:
Enjoy your slow G2G response to switch pixels already, not to mention that hidden input and scalar lag. Luckily, CRT has no such bullshit.

The only semi-legitimate point I've heard against CRTs regards weight, but you don't bitch about the weight of a prospective couch while furniture shopping, do you? Didn't think so.

1400x1050 laptop
i could upgrade the panel to 1600x1200 i guess, but dont think its worth it at this time

>>23759735
>Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush
I see what you did there.

>>23759666
You obviously didn't read my whole post. :-)

I know how ratios work. I acknowledged the reducibility of 16:9, while also admitting implicitly that though I did not create the standard notation for display aspect ratios, I could offer one possible explanation.

There's also no real reason for reducing fractions when you're not expected to be performing arithmetic on them. It's a habit your math teachers beat into you because it facilitates easier math. It doesn't have anything to do with correctness, just as using a repeating decimal doesn't make a number less equivalent with its simplest rational expression.

>>23759513
>anything less than 85 hz on a CRT

enjoy your flickering and headaches

>>23759720
Vidya looks fine on 16:10 and I'm sure you could put up with black bars for less than 2 hours per however often you watch videos.

>>23759769
*... reducibility of 16:10...

whoops!

It hertz to see people still using shit resolutions and CRT's.
2560x1440 IPS master race.

>>23759777
vidya is better in 16:9.
movies are better in 16:9

IPS > CRT > TN
Can't explain that.

It's roughly the aspect ratio of a human eye, so you can see as much as possible without having to mouse your eyes up/down or to the sides.

>>23759846
move your eyes*
not mouse, obviously. he he

>>23759846
>mouse your eyes
Go outside bro.

>>23759842
IPS > recent TN > CRT > old TN
>>23759846
I think the aspect ratio of the human eye is even wider than 16:9.

>>23759881
No.

OLED > IPS > CRT > TN > Shit

>narrow aspect ratio reduces surface area
>short screen is easier to make
>lower pixel count than a proper 16:10

>>23759075
>honestly, 720p (1280x720) looks good enough on most panels
>I hardly saw any difference on a 55" LCD
Youtube and 700 MB AVIs don't count.

>>23759896
> OLED
No one gives a shit

>>23759821
Movies don't look better in 16:9. Most movies are mastered in 16:9, so watching in 16:10 results in black bars or cropping (i.e., the pixels drawn are still only 16:9).

Video games certainly don't look better in 16:9, because they are rendered at whatever resolution you give them. For most video games, choosing 16:10 means it will be rendered and displayed at 16:10, not stretched or cropped from 16:9.