16:9 does have 100% support for many years now....16:9 will never have 100% support in games. 16:10 will never have 100% support in games.
Nothing will ever have 100% support in games because there is and will forever be limitations.
Whats the point of this thread exactly?
16:9 does have 100% support for many years now....
My assertion of 100% support did not state that old games count. It's literally grasping at straws now to bring 10 year old games and mobile games in the picture. For all practical purposes 16:9 has 100% support for a PC gamer in 2016.No it doesn't. Recent games sure, but not 100% of all games. Not to mention all of the iOS games that are developed only at 4:3 and 3:2 and is only recently using 16:9.
My assertion of 100% support did not state that old games count. It's literally grasping at straws now to bring 10 year old games and mobile games in the picture. For all practical purposes 16:9 has 100% support for a PC gamer in 2016.
The consoles adopted widescreen as well with the Xbox 360 so there wasn't a problem there. There is almost no chance consoles will support 21:9 in the foreseeable future so it's a totally different ball game.When wide screens were new there was a lack of support. Same thing now. Most new games and many old ones support it fine. My opinion is that 21:9 is far superior to anything else other than neuronal based hacking. The world always falls inline with my opinion, therefore, 21:9 will become far more popular and become the new norm. It is better because it better. Also because I declare it to be better.
I run 3840x1024 and I rarely find a game that doesn't work with it, sometimes UI's suck with it but rare and apps like flawless wide screen have almost always taken care of that. I find your position very odd and not reflecting reality seeing I run a very uncommon resolution without issue.
my next monitor will be 21:9 its just a matter of when i'll allow myself the indulgence.
I run 5760x1080 and it almost never works right, so I have no idea what games you're playing. UI is almost universally broken (Titanfall 2). Sometimes the game plays fine but your HUD is gone or wonky (Fallout 4). Sometimes it plays fine but you can't change FOV so the super-wide screen gives you ridiculous zoom levels (h1z1).
The only games that worked right on triple monitor that I've played lately were BF1, SWBF and The Long Dark
1) I'm pretty certain 16:9 is chosen due to TV's using it, and has nothing to do with anything a PC does. Once it became standard, then all those other things were designed around it.21:9 isn't crippled by consoles, but by 2 aspects:
- How its extreme ratio inhibits these monitors from being all around solutions. 16:9 is now the standard because is in the sweet spot, not too narrow for the panoramic content and with the enough amplitude for the vertical content like web browsing, office docs, CAD... 21:9 monitors are niche products for specific users, and will never have significant popularity, because it doesn't come by being the best, but by being the one that suits the most.
- And how high they're priced. Any decent 21:9 monitor is so expensive that you can easily jump to a higher 16:9 resolution for the same price, getting the same width and immersion while also benefiting from a bigger amplitude, win-win after all.
I run a 1080p monitor vertical at work. Some sites still work at the 1024 responsive design point, it ends up being enough to put a Word doc at 100% zoom on it and see a page and a half of text at a timeAre you comparing 21:9 to 3:2? You need to make it relative. 3440x1440 equivalent in mega pixels is similar to the real, existing 2880x1920 (this is only ~11% larger). I'd take the former for heavy office use or gaming or watching videos, don't get me wrong, but for non-multitasking use (laptops come to mind) think about how often you scroll vertically on web pages and in word docs, and how you nearly never scroll horizontally.
edit: Na, I change my mind I'd take even 21:9 there. I'd just make sure it's a swivel monitor and then we get 1440x3440 (9:21!). Much of the internet is still fine with ~1366 wide pixels thanks to 1366x768 sticking around, so that would be a great resolution just to browse webpages on. Anyone have swivel?
3440x1440 is awesome. When reasonably priced *VA panels with 120Hz+ refresh come out, I'll be getting one.
21:9 isn't crippled by consoles, but by 2 aspects:
- How its extreme ratio inhibits these monitors from being all around solutions. 16:9 is now the standard because is in the sweet spot, not too narrow for the panoramic content and with the enough amplitude for the vertical content like web browsing, office docs, CAD... 21:9 monitors are niche products for specific users, and will never have significant popularity, because it doesn't come by being the best, but by being the one that suits the most.
- And how high they're priced. Any decent 21:9 monitor is so expensive that you can easily jump to a higher 16:9 resolution for the same price, getting the same width and immersion while also benefiting from a bigger amplitude, win-win after all.
I doubt anyone who has used 3440x1440 would settle for 2440x1440 or even 4k.
It is far superior for both gaming (immersion) [b[and working (2 documents side by side perfectly)[/b]
This.Wrong.gif
Any 2 documents that will fit side by side at 3440x1440 will fit side by side at 3840x2160.
After using 4k, everything else lacks vertical space. Moar lines! 3840x2400 would be even better.
5760x3840? Can'twait.gif
And I don't think I could find a 21:9 27" screen immersive. Just too small.
1) I'm pretty certain 16:9 is chosen due to TV's using it, and has nothing to do with anything a PC does. Once it became standard, then all those other things were designed around it.
2) They are priced low because that is the aspect ratio TV's chose.
21:9 is a bezel-free twin 10.5:9 setup. It's actually the tallest common setup because it's two screens in one when you start using them. On laptops, a taller ratio works well, but on desktops, there is no excuse to not have a monitor setup optimized around multiple open windows. Splitting a 16:9 gets narrow, which leaves 21:9 as giving two nice regions when split. And regarding going to bigger 16:9, 40+" 4K is similarly niche to 34" 3440x1440, while 2x2560x1440 is somewhat awkward to use in practice (the outer edge of the secondary screen isn't particularly easy to use) and uses two ports and has two stands to buy decent versions of if you want a better setup. Right now, the ultimate setup in my opinion is 2560+3440+2560x1440. It's amazing if your desk can fit it.