16:9 Vs. 16:10?

[EarthboundHero]

I've herd Linus say that he wants 16:10 back. Why is 16:10 better? What are your guy's opinions on this?

[Fate]

More vertical screen real estate

[EarthboundHero]

More vertical screen real estate

Is that it? Why not just go up resolution?

[bosfreak]

I've herd Linus say that he wants 16:10 back. Why is 16:10 better? What are your guy's opinions on this?

more vertical pixels

[dizmo]

It's not necessarily better. It's just different.

[SeanBond]

21:9 is best. The wider the better. What is your real life field of view? I promise it's nowhere near as narrow as 16:10.  I love me ultra wide. He also says that 3440x1440p is pretty much perfect. 

[Ahaber]

Is that it? Why not just go up resolution?

 

The suckieness of windows scalling.

[Fate]

Is that it? Why not just go up resolution?

You do go up in resolution, for example: 1920x1080 to 1920x1200. If you meant go to 2560x1440, not everybody has that kind of $$$

[EarthboundHero]

You do go up in resolution, for example: 1920x1080 to 1920x1200. If you meant go to 2560x1440, not everybody has that kind of $$$

But 1920X1200 monitors are way more expensive than 1080P.

[Glenwing]

Is that it? Why not just go up resolution?

 

For every higher 16:9 resolution there's also an accompanying 16:10 resolution with more vertical space.  16:10 is better for browsing vertically navigated websites (such as this forum) and for working with documents and spreadsheets.  It's better for content creation, because if you are editing 16:9 content you can see the entire project pixel-for-pixel and still have room for your taskbar and editing suite toolbar without them covering up part of the project, whereas on a 16:9 screen it would take up the entire screen.  16:10 in general just feels a lot larger than every comparable 16:9 counterpart.

[Fate]

But 1920X1200 monitors are way more expensive than 1080P.

Yea, because there's not that many of them. They probably don't cost much more than 1080p to make and are twice the price which is probably why he wants 16:10 'back'. 

IDK just speculation

[EarthboundHero]

For every higher 16:9 resolution there's also an accompanying 16:10 resolution with more vertical space.  16:10 is better for browsing vertically navigated websites (such as this forum) and for working with documents and spreadsheets.  It's better for content creation, because if you are editing 16:9 content you can see the entire project pixel-for-pixel and still have room for your taskbar and editing suite toolbar without them covering up part of the project, whereas on a 16:9 screen it would take up the entire screen.  16:10 in general just feels a lot larger than every comparable 16:9 counterpart.

Best answer. I remember someone (I think Linus) saying 16:10 is for content creation and 16:9 for content consumption. Thanks for the great answer.

[Glenwing]

But 1920X1200 monitors are way more expensive than 1080P.

 

Only because 1080p is now the common standard.  1920x1200 is a niche product now, and there are no lower end or budget-oriented models.  All of them are targeted toward content creators, not normal consumers, so they often have features such as color calibration or other things that increase the cost.  Then there is also an inherent price difference due to the higher demand for 16:9, so higher volume on those reduces cost.  If 16:10 became more popular, there is no reason it can't be just as cheap.