DAOWAce

Wow, the amount of inaccurate comments here is impressive, especially since this is Linus' community. I thought he was teaching you guys stuff!  Tsk tsk.
 
There are not '120' more pixels on a 1920x1200 display vs 1080p; there are 230,400 more pixels.  In terms of measurement; there's 2.5cm more space vertically.
 
The vertical space difference is far greater than people think.  Here's a sample screenshot of a game running in 1080p borderless on my monitor (centered): http://i.imgur.com/RS2N3gR.png
 
As you can hopefully see, there's tons of space left. (It would look much bigger if I placed it at the top.) This is very useful when multitasking in larger applications, especially 1080p video/asset creation, as you can actually have controls on screen while also viewing the footage at its full resolution.
 
I feel like people have been using 16:9 TV displays for so long that they just forgot how beneficial the actual 16:10 PC aspect ratio was.
 
 
 
I'm personally disappointed, but unless you are doing any sort of work outside of playing games (even just browsing the internet), the loss isn't that bad, plus 16:9 gives you higher FoV in games that are Hor+, so it's advantageous (though not like you couldn't just play in 1080p anyway on a '1200p' display).  If you play any older titles (things designed for 4:3) then you'll have a very poor experience with scaling to 16:9, unlike with 16:10.  Basically, the only advantage 16:9 monitors have over 16:10 is that you don't have letterboxing when viewing 16:9 content, which is hardly an advantage. (No, 120+Hz isn't part of the equation)
 
I personally cannot drop from 16:10 as playing classic titles is pretty much half of what I play, not to mention I do far more on my PC than just play games, so the vertical space is essential to my PC usage.  I'd love a 21:10 display in portrait mode for real work and web browsing, but those things don't exist.. yet.

Wow, the amount of inaccurate comments here is impressive, especially since this is Linus' community. I thought he was teaching you guys stuff!  Tsk tsk.
 
There are not '120' more pixels on a 1920x1200 display vs 1080p; there are 230,400 more pixels.  In terms of measurement; there's 2.5cm more space vertically.
 
The vertical space difference is far greater than people think.  Here's a sample screenshot of a game running in 1080p borderless on my monitor (centered): http://i.imgur.com/RS2N3gR.png
 
As you can hopefully see, there's tons of space left. (It would look much bigger if I placed it at the top.) This is very useful when multitasking in larger applications, especially 1080p video/asset creation, as you can actually have controls on screen while also viewing the footage at its full resolution.
 
I feel like people have been using 16:9 TV displays for so long that they just forgot how beneficial the actual 16:10 PC aspect ratio was.
 
 
 
I'm personally disappointed, but unless you are doing any sort of work outside of playing games (even just browsing the internet), the loss isn't that bad, plus 16:9 gives you higher FoV in games that are Hor+, so it's advantageous (though not like you couldn't just play in 1080p anyway on a '1200p' display).  If you play any older titles (things designed for 4:3) then you'll have a very poor experience with scaling to 16:9, unlike with 16:10.  Basically, the only advantage 16:9 monitors have over 16:10 is that you don't have letterboxing when viewing 16:9 content, which is hardly an advantage. (No, 120+Hz isn't part of the equation)
 
I personally cannot drop from 16:10 as playing classic titles is pretty much half of what I play, not to mention I do far more on my PC than just play games, so the vertical space is essential to my PC usage.  I'd love a 21:10 display in portrait mode for real work and web browsing, but those things don't exist.. yet.

Nagware.
Ads.
Nagging.
Dogs.
Nags.
Noise, noise, noise.
People.
People ignorantly using the term 'lag'.
The term "HD".
 
Pointless UI changes are more than an irritation for me, else I'd include them.  For example: I still use Vista because of 7's UI changes despite support being dropped for it. (visual comparison: http://imgur.com/a/DXZ0G)  If only companies learned not to change things for the worse. (Right Google?)

Nagware.
Ads.
Nagging.
Dogs.
Nags.
Noise, noise, noise.
People.
People ignorantly using the term 'lag'.
The term "HD".
 
Pointless UI changes are more than an irritation for me, else I'd include them.  For example: I still use Vista because of 7's UI changes despite support being dropped for it. (visual comparison: http://imgur.com/a/DXZ0G)  If only companies learned not to change things for the worse. (Right Google?)

*cough*

 
Not bad for being unemployed..
If you want to look yourself, my username is the same one here.
2015 edit: Over the last 10 years, you've spent 5273.5 hours playing this selection, which includes 1172 items, is valued at $13504.6, and requires 3206 GB
Hurp.

*cough*

 
Not bad for being unemployed..
If you want to look yourself, my username is the same one here.
2015 edit: Over the last 10 years, you've spent 5273.5 hours playing this selection, which includes 1172 items, is valued at $13504.6, and requires 3206 GB
Hurp.

Tweeting is the easiest way to get info out fast!
 
https://twitter.com/DAOWAce
 
Would share to another site but, well, I don't have a site anyone except me cares about. :(

After winning an Alienware system with an i7-930 and throwing my 2x GTX 460's in it, I went with Intel with my future builds and never looked back.  The difference between my Phenom II 945 and the i7-930 was beyond belief.
 
I want to go back to AMD because of Intel's clear EA attitude, but until their CPUs can match single core performance (believe me, some people need it a lot more than others), I'm forced to stick with Intel as much as I dislike it (terrible native SATA3 support, poor RAID support, poor USB 3 support, lack of cheaper/higher end CPUs that don't cost a fortune for marginal increases, Ivy Bridge TIM debacle, stuff mentioned in the picture, etc.)
 
If there was one reason I'd go with AMD on a new build it'd be to use the APU (for strong multi-core and iGPU performance) and run a storage array due to the full native SATA3 connectivity.  Intel needs a good smacking to get them in gear.

My DDR2 chips were GeiL Black Dragons. Beauties.
 
Now I have simple G.Skill chips that were horribly overpriced ($300 for 4x4GB 1600MHz CL7 @1.65v) and I smack myself for because of it.  Low latency RAM is a dying fad unfortunately; need to jump to high-bandwidth while keeping the lowest possible latencies instead, better for encoding software afaik.  (Also, it didn't work properly on my boards with all 4 sticks.  Took MSI a a single support ticket and 2 weeks to support it.. took ASUS about 7 months and tons of nagging. Shame I don't like using MSI boards.)

Nagware.
Ads.
Nagging.
Dogs.
Nags.
Noise, noise, noise.
People.
People ignorantly using the term 'lag'.
The term "HD".
 
Pointless UI changes are more than an irritation for me, else I'd include them.  For example: I still use Vista because of 7's UI changes despite support being dropped for it. (visual comparison: http://imgur.com/a/DXZ0G)  If only companies learned not to change things for the worse. (Right Google?)