Why did this monitor resolution get abandoned?

[arnavvr]

Recently, I picked up a Dell U3011 for cheap. I instantly fell in love with the screen size and resolution. So why did this resolution die in favor of 27'' 1440p panels? (IMO, worse)

[Enderman]

16:10 isn't that common anymore.

Almost all content is 16:9.

If people want more vertical room they use portrait monitors.

[Some random guy 23424234]

not sure, but i think they change it in favor for the 16:9 ratio. The dell you have is a 16:10 ratio if im not mistaken

[ELSknutson]

did you watch todays video?

[m0k]

my guess
people were drawn to the "omg 1080p FULL HD video" hype, and "omg they eliminated the black bars on our movies"
so 16:9 became a standard 

 

[ARikozuM]

16:10 is still alive. It may not be common for consumers but many professionals use 16:10 for the added real estate.

[arnavvr]

8 minutes ago, ELSknutson said:

did you watch todays video?

Yes I did, and saw how he compared the 34in ultrawides and 38in ultrawides to 30in 16:10s

 

7 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

16:10 is still alive. It may not be common for consumers but many professionals use 16:10 for the added real estate.

My Question mainly is, why are no new 16:10 panels coming out with 144hz, 1ms response time, etc.

[ELSknutson]

Just now, arnavvr said:

Yes I did, and saw how he compared the 34in ultrawides and 38in ultrawides to 30in 16:10s

 

My Question mainly is, why are no new 16:10 panels coming out with 144hz, 1ms response time, etc.

because games dont support the resolution like they do with 16:9 also Windows has issues scaling with that resolution.

[ARikozuM]

Just now, arnavvr said:

Yes I did, and saw how he compared the 34in ultrawides and 38in ultrawides to 30in 16:10s

I'd prefer to use 21:9, personally, since the extra width makes most games and software more usable.

Just now, arnavvr said:

My Question mainly is, why are no new 16:10 panels coming out with 144hz, 1ms response time, etc.

Target demographics. If your desired customers don't need 144hz, give them a better price for their needs. You make a product for the many, not the few. People who would benefit from 16:10 are likely into editing (photo and video) and don't need the 144hz output while doing so.

[Glenwing]

8 minutes ago, ELSknutson said:

because games dont support the resolution like they do with 16:9 also Windows has issues scaling with that resolution.

Games support 16:10 just as well as 16:9, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with Windows scaling issues.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, Glenwing said:

Games support 16:10 just as well as 16:9, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with Windows scaling issues.

Linus said in his 8K gaming that games support any resolution 

[arnavvr]

8 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

Games support 16:10 just as well as 16:9, and I'm not sure what you're talking about with Windows scaling issues.

I haven't had any scaling issues, with both my 16:10 2560x1600 panel and my 16:10 1920x1200 panel. 

[Acquire]

Because 16:9 became the TV standard.  16:10 stayed around for a bit for professional grade monitors, but then they just went to 16:9 probably for consistency and marketing purposes.  Whatever ends up becoming the consumer standard usually wins out.

 

Windows has no problem with resolution or aspect ratio.  It'll render to whatever you set it at.  Most games do so as well.  

 

This is the same reason why 21:9 monitors are becoming popular.  It's actually 2.37:1, which fits into the range (usually referred to as anamorphic or cinemascope) that most movies are filmed at.

 

16:9 was originally chosen as a compromise between old (4:3, 5:4, etc) TV standards and anamorphic to not show too much pillarboxing (vertical black bars) on displays.