Where are 16:10 monitors above 24" size?

[Delicieuxz]

Looking at the 16:10 monitors for sale, they're all 24" size. That's too small, IMO. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2693HM, which is labelled as 26", but I've read it listed some place as actually 25.5", I'm not sure which is the exact size. But it's a very satisfactory size for a desktop monitor (if anything I'd like an addition 1 - 2" larger), and 24" by comparison is not as satisfying. But when I've looked for a potential replacement monitor, I couldn't find a 16:10 monitor that's larger than 24".

 

I find a 16:9 ratio to be ridiculously disproportionate and distractingly narrow, vertically, and disadvantageous in gaming, reading, and app use due to a 16:9 monitor's about 1.75" less vertical height than a comparable 16:10 monitor - and that reduction in vertical space works out to be cropped screen visibility, as 16:9 and 16:10 ratios feature the same width display. Unless I find a good sized 16:10 monitor, I'll just keep using the one I have.

 

Recently, my 6 year old monitor starting being problematic, with the screen taking a long time to turn on, and looking glitchy. But I opened it up, and replaced all the capacitors for around $4, and now it is as good as new again. I think Samsung used lower quality capacitors when building the monitor to shorten its expected life, so that an owner would have to buy a new monitor after so many years.

 

The reasons I'd consider buying a new monitor to replace this one, which really is great, is to have a more energy efficient monitor, and less heat created by the monitor screen. And maybe for higher resolutions than 1920x1200. But if I can't find a replacement model that's bigger than 24", I won't bother. The aspect ratio and monitor size come before the other details that I've mentioned.

 

 

Also, I wish that NCIX would allow search filtering of monitors based on their aspect ratio, so that only 16:10 monitors could be returned as a search result.

[Glenwing]

Looking at the 16:10 monitors for sale, they're all 24" size. That's too small, IMO. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2693HM, which is labelled as 26", but I've read it listed some place as actually 25.5", I'm not sure which is the exact size. But it's a very satisfactory size for a desktop monitor (if anything I'd like an addition 1 - 2" larger), and 24" by comparison is not as satisfying. But when I've looked for a potential replacement monitor, I couldn't find a 16:10 monitor that's larger than 24".

 

I find a 16:9 ratio to be ridiculously disproportionate and distractingly narrow, vertically, and disadvantageous in gaming, reading, and app use due to a 16:9 monitor's about 1.75" less vertical height than a comparable 16:10 monitor - and that reduction in vertical space works out to be cropped screen visibility, as 16:9 and 16:10 ratios feature the same width display. Unless I find a good sized 16:10 monitor, I'll just keep using the one I have.

 

Recently, my 6 year old monitor starting being problematic, with the screen taking a long time to turn on, and looking glitchy. But I opened it up, and replaced all the capacitors for around $4, and now it is as good as new again. I think Samsung used lower quality capacitors when building the monitor to shorten its expected life, so that an owner would have to buy a new monitor after so many years.

 

The reasons I'd consider buying a new monitor to replace this one, which really is great, is to have a more energy efficient monitor, and less heat created by the monitor screen. And maybe for higher resolutions than 1920x1200. But if I can't find a replacement model that's bigger than 24", I won't bother. The aspect ratio and monitor size come before the other details that I've mentioned.

 

 

Also, I wish that NCIX would allow search filtering of monitors based on their aspect ratio, so that only 16:10 monitors could be returned as a search result.

 

Other than horribly expensive (or else cheaply built) and usually outdated 30" 2560x1600 monitors, unfortunately you won't find any. 16:10 just isn't in fashion these days

[Guest]

3840x2400

[Elfuego]

I know right...

 

Cant find anything to replace my dying Dell 3007

[byalexandr]

Looking at the 16:10 monitors for sale, they're all 24" size. That's too small, IMO. I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2693HM, which is labelled as 26", but I've read it listed some place as actually 25.5", I'm not sure which is the exact size. But it's a very satisfactory size for a desktop monitor (if anything I'd like an addition 1 - 2" larger), and 24" by comparison is not as satisfying. But when I've looked for a potential replacement monitor, I couldn't find a 16:10 monitor that's larger than 24".

 

I find a 16:9 ratio to be ridiculously disproportionate and distractingly narrow, vertically, and disadvantageous in gaming, reading, and app use due to a 16:9 monitor's about 1.75" less vertical height than a comparable 16:10 monitor - and that reduction in vertical space works out to be cropped screen visibility, as 16:9 and 16:10 ratios feature the same width display. Unless I find a good sized 16:10 monitor, I'll just keep using the one I have.

 

Recently, my 6 year old monitor starting being problematic, with the screen taking a long time to turn on, and looking glitchy. But I opened it up, and replaced all the capacitors for around $4, and now it is as good as new again. I think Samsung used lower quality capacitors when building the monitor to shorten its expected life, so that an owner would have to buy a new monitor after so many years.

 

The reasons I'd consider buying a new monitor to replace this one, which really is great, is to have a more energy efficient monitor, and less heat created by the monitor screen. And maybe for higher resolutions than 1920x1200. But if I can't find a replacement model that's bigger than 24", I won't bother. The aspect ratio and monitor size come before the other details that I've mentioned.

 

 

Also, I wish that NCIX would allow search filtering of monitors based on their aspect ratio, so that only 16:10 monitors could be returned as a search result.

Try and look for some workstation grade monitors, I know Planar has a few.

[Guest]

I know right...

 

Cant find anything to replace my dying Dell 3007

 

What about the U2415?

[Elfuego]

What about the U2415?

 

The larger 16x10 aspect ratio is so handy for unreal engine...

[Guest]

The larger 16x10 aspect ratio is so handy for unreal engine...

 

It is 16:10...

[Elfuego]

It is 16:10...

 

Ill check it... Wish it was 30" Though so it fits with my other monitor...

[Delicieuxz]

 

 

 

Other than horribly expensive (or else cheaply built) and usually outdated 30" 2560x1600 monitors, unfortunately you won't find any. 16:10 just isn't in fashion these days

 

 

Well they need to come back into fashion. 16:9 is just not suitable for PC Gaming Master Race (and general) use. I once started writing Samsung a lengthy email telling them how important it is to have large 16:10 monitors available to purchase. Maybe I should locate and finish it, and send it off to them. No 25.5"+ 16:10, no buy!

 

 

I know right...

 

Cant find anything to replace my dying Dell 3007

 

If it's developing issues, the capacitors are a likely culprit, in monitors, on motherboards, and in electronics in general. They can be replaced with a little soldering for mere dollars. And if you don't want to solder, an electronics repair shop would probably do it for less than $60.

 

The Bad Caps forum can help if you want to solder it and have any questions.

 

Main site:

http://www.badcaps.net/

 

Bad Caps forum:

http://www.badcaps.net/forum/index.php

[Elfuego]

Well they need to come back into fashion. 16:9 is just not suitable for PC Gaming Master Race (and general) use. I once started writing Samsung a lengthy email telling them how important it is to have large 16:10 monitors available to purchase. Maybe I should locate and finish it, and send it off to them. No 25.5"+ 16:10, no buy!

 

 

 

If it's developing issues, the capacitors are a likely culprit, in monitors, on motherboards, and in electronics in general. They can be replaced with a little soldering for mere dollars. And if you don't want to solder, an electronics repair shop would probably do it for less than $60.

 

The Bad Caps forum can help if you want to solder it and have any questions.

 

Main site:

http://www.badcaps.net/

 

Bad Caps forum:

http://www.badcaps.net/forum/index.php

 

Cheers for the heads up; I will look into it but I am not sure how effective it will be for a> some stuck pixels (got a couple of columns that are stuck when first turned on but after 30mins or so actually fix themselves).

 

The screen also has a physical dent where my dad dropped something onto it..

[Delicieuxz]

Some bad columns that correct after the monitor warms up actually sounds to me like it might be capacitor related. Asking on that Bad Caps forum will definitely give some well-informed answers. They have a section all about monitors:

 

http://www.badcaps.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=30

[Guest Strangerbob]

This 16:10 fanboyism is really annoying.

 

Its useful for laptops or tablets. Otherwise - nope. People tend to work with MORE than one application on their desktop screen nowadays. Some specific work could be the only argument for it. Anything that has to do with media content is lightyears better on a 21:9 than anything else.

 

IMO there should only be two aspect ratios: 3:2 for mobile and 5:2 for stationary screens.

[Delicieuxz]

It's useful for PC desktops as much as anything. Using more than one application on the desktop is all the more reason why added vertical is important. Anything involving vertically-listed information benefits from it - reading, writing, modelling, audio editing... and especially gaming. Increased horizontal is useful, but in a different way. A 21:9 setup doesn't address the benefits which a 16:10 has over a 16:9, and a 21:10 would be better to have than a 21:9.

 

I regularly run 3 - 15+ applications at a time on my desktop, and they all benefit from having 16:10 in a manner than 21:9 won't address. I'd love a 21:10, but the added horizontal is addressing a completely different aspect of work than added vertical. X:9 always has reduced display compared to X:10, and that reduction is an impoverishment of productivity, convenience, and user experience in comparison.

 

16:9 also isn't as visually ergonomic for the human peripheral from desktop distance.

 

It's simple reality that if something bites, or conversely benefits, it makes perfect sense that people will acknowledge it, to a purpose.

[Glenwing]

This 16:10 fanboyism is really annoying.

Its useful for laptops or tablets. Otherwise - nope. People tend to work with MORE than one application on their desktop screen nowadays. Some specific work could be the only argument for it. Anything that has to do with media content is lightyears better on a 21:9 than anything else.

IMO there should only be two aspect ratios: 3:2 for mobile and 5:2 for stationary screens.

That first comment is incredibly hypocritical considering how you've been endlessly raving about 21:9 for months. You can have your own opinions but don't get annoyed when other people do the same.

16:10 is objectively better than 16:9 for web browsing, documents, spreadsheets, programming, and CAD/modeling work, all of which I do on a daily basis. As for running multiple applications that is what multiple monitors are for. Bezels may annoy gamers but for work it makes a nice separator and plays better with window snapping than one continuous monitor. Plus I can "adjust the curve" so to speak. Plus switch inputs between multiple devices separately so I can work with two computers onscreen together. Sure you can do it with PbP on a 21:9 display, but you'll be limited to dual 5:4 screens and it's altogether more fluid to actually have two monitors than one trying to imitate two.

21:9 has its advantages, in gaming, media, and timeline-based work like editing. But it's not a king of all trades.

Personally I'd rather standardize around 16:10 and 24:10 especially since they both already exist in effect (3440x1440 is almost 24:10 exactly, a lot closer to that than to 21:9) but that's a topic for a different thread...

[bimmerman]

What he said.

 

Using 16:10 and 21:9 side by side (2x 27" 16:10, 1x 34" 21:9) makes me appreciate my 16:10 all the more. After daily use of this setup, I'm likely not going to buy 21:9 again for a work computer. It's nice to have a spreadsheet splayed out across, or a ppt and word doc side by side, but it's not nearly as useful as a pair of 16:10s for everything that I do-- solid modeling, simulations, etc. Vertical height (physical, not pixel) is critical in non-media-centric work: 16:9 and 21:9 are unacceptably short.

 

My 16:10s, at 1920x1200, are nearly two inches taller than the 34" 3440x1440 21:9 sitting next to them. This causes a lot of eye strain and actually reduces the amount of space I have to work on things, because pixel count (and required scaling) is not the same as physical height.

 

If my 21:9 dies, I'm getting the 30" 16:10s if they still make them. My 27s are on their last gasp, and the 21:9 has been a massively disappointing replacement for them, for the work that I do. CAD is pretty annoying to use on the 21:9, if I'm honest.

 

Content consumption is oddly similar story-- unless I'm gaming, which is very rare nowadays (I think I last played a game in...June?), streaming video services support 16:10 much better than 21:9. What's the point of having such a wide monitor for media consumption if it's got black bars on the sides? It sure is pretty, and really nice for spreadsheet work, so it's staying for the time being.

 

Regarding multiple documents per monitor? Yes. Daily. Two side by side on the 16:10 is quite usable and nice. The 21:9 really just lets you put three side by side, four gets claustrophobic. 16:10 also fits engineering drawing prints much better than 21:9, allowing you to model on one monitor and reference part drawings and dimension on the other, in large size, allowing you to be very efficient and fast.

[Guest Strangerbob]

That first comment is incredibly hypocritical considering how you've been endlessly raving about 21:9 for months. You can have your own opinions but don't get annoyed when other people do the same.

16:10 is objectively better than 16:9 for web browsing, documents, spreadsheets, programming, and CAD/modeling work, all of which I do on a daily basis. As for running multiple applications that is what multiple monitors are for. Bezels may annoy gamers but for work it makes a nice separator and plays better with window snapping than one continuous monitor. Plus I can "adjust the curve" so to speak. Plus switch inputs between multiple devices separately so I can work with two computers onscreen together. Sure you can do it with PbP on a 21:9 display, but you'll be limited to dual 5:4 screens and it's altogether more fluid to actually have two monitors than one trying to imitate two.

21:9 has its advantages, in gaming, media, and timeline-based work like editing. But it's not a king of all trades.

I'd rather standardize around 16:10 and 24:10 especially since they both already exist in effect (3440x1440 is almost 24:10 exactly, a lot closer to that than to 21:9) but that's a topic for a different thread..

 

I know, i sounded like a dick. It was lot more lighthearted, but you cant see that in the text... i dont know why i do that. (as i later say i want 3:2 aspect ratio as a standard next to 5:2)

 

ANYWAY

 

I wana ask about that 16:10 a thing i dont get.

 

If you can choose a 2560x1600 or a 3840x2160 monitor for CAD and such, which one? Surely more height is the important part, not the specific aspect ratio, yes?

And which one would you choose for the same purpose between 2560x1600 and 3840x1600? As both are equal height, and assume there are no higher resolutions available.

[Glenwing]

I know, i sounded like a dick. It was lot more lighthearted, but you cant see that in the text... i dont know why i do that. (as i later say i want 3:2 aspect ratio as a standard next to 5:2)

 

ANYWAY

 

I wana ask about that 16:10 a thing i dont get.

 

If you can choose a 2560x1600 or a 3840x2160 monitor for CAD and such, which one? Surely more height is the important part, not the specific aspect ratio, yes?

And which one would you choose for the same purpose between 2560x1600 and 3840x1600? As both are equal height, and assume there are no higher resolutions available.

 

I would rather have the 2560x1600 over 3840x2160 at similar sizes. For CAD, the aspect ratio is important, it's not necessarily about pixel count. I'll take games to make an analogy, I'm sure you're aware that due to HOR+ scaling in most games you get a wider field of view with a wider monitor since the vertical FOV is always the same.

 

If you increase resolution, for example from 1920x1080 to 2560x1440, the image is scaled up to fill your screen and you see exactly the same stuff in the game, it's just sharper. Meanwhile if you switch to a wider resolution like 2560x1080, the image just extends horizontally and you can see more stuff. So, the wider the ratio the more you can see in games, regardless of resolution. A 1366x768 monitor has a wider FOV in games than a 4096x3072 monitor.

 

But the same is also true in reverse, if I go from 2560x1600 to 3840x2160 of the same-ish size in CAD, I see less. It doesn't really matter that the resolution is higher. It's just sharper. Sure, if I zoomed out to the same level of sharpness I had on 2560x1600, I'd be able to see more. But then model would be smaller too, if the screen is of similar size. If I interact with my model in exactly the same way, the image will be sharper yes, but the pixels won't give a better overview.

 

Between 2560x1600 and 3840x1600 of equal height, normally I'd just raise you a 3840x2400 monitor and we could go all day extending it up and out and up and out, but you left that little "no higher resolutions" comment...

 

I'm aware of the logic going on here though, it's similar to people raising an eyebrow when people want 1920x1080 over 1200, considering that 1920x1200 contains 1920x1080 inside it. Exactly what you're looking for + more, how can you go wrong right? I suppose if I had a monitor with the exact same height and vertical resolution, just wider, it wouldn't be any worse for CAD work in a vaccuum, but I would still reject it for general usage-related reasons, as I find multi-monitor to be a better multi-tasking solution than ultrawides and the extra width would put other monitors much further to the sides even if I could still fit them on my desk. But... that's just me. The other thing is, an ultrawide at equal height is a whole different class of monitor size and price, which just isn't comparable. Because for any given resolution, you can always say "wouldn't you rather have X?" which is some other much larger monitor of a different aspect ratio, which just happens to contain the other monitor's resolution by virtue of being huge in comparison. I could use the same argument for advocating 4096x3072 for gaming over 4096x1600 if it's of equal width, just taller. But if that's the case we're talking about a huge difference in size and class, and you start to realize how that negates the comparison if you can think about it from the point of view of someone actually shopping for a display. Though it's harder to do it with totally fantastic imaginary resolutions and monitors since pricing isn't in the equation

[Guest Strangerbob]

But the same is also true in reverse, if I go from 2560x1600 to 3840x2160 of the same-ish size in CAD, I see less. It doesn't really matter that the resolution is higher. It's just sharper. Sure, if I zoomed out to the same level of sharpness I had on 2560x1600, I'd be able to see more. But then model would be smaller too, if the screen is of similar size. If I interact with my model in exactly the same way, the image will be sharper yes, but the pixels won't give a better overview.

 

I finally understood this ongoing demand for taller monitors. Thank you! Its a big deal for me to know this, even if it doesnt affect me directly.

[bimmerman]

That is a very good and succinct explanation.

[RuThaN]

Possibility of choice is best thing the life.. So i want my 4:3 and 16:10 panel and i ready to pay for premium..

[Glenwing]

Please don't revive old threads.