31–40 of 341 posts
Author optimized for this metrics. If you dont need this, no need to try :D
And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (There are also minor subpixel rendering issues, along with viewing angle issues if using a TN panel but those are still more minor.)
Maybe it would be smarter to use one of the these? Samsung 43" M70A 4K UHD Smart Monitor https://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/smart-monitors...
I really wish that someone would make a 43" TV/monitor in 8k. The smallest that I've seen is 55" and that just too big to be comfortably used as a monitor.
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
When has line length ever been an issue? That 22 degree thing is hell. You can see like 5 lines, it would drive me insane.
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
Yawn. Get on with the times. I've been using ultrawide (21:9) for years, and would definitely not want to go back to peeking through a square'ish hole.
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
The only disadvantage though is that putting two windows/panes/buffers of anything side by side would no longer be as convenient?
Do you have a 3:2 screen yourself, which one?
On a similar note, I once again wish more displays were 3:2, and more people knew about it. The human central (not peripheral) vision’s ratio is very close to 3:2, yet due to economics of scale 16:9 is marginally cheaper and much more common. And if someone is wondering, no, rotating 16:9 vertically for more vertical space doesn’t help because it makes it very narrow - for me IMO a square display would be the best. (…
The LG DualUp is an almost-square 16:18 monitor, higher resolution than the Eizo and almost half the price.