But why should 1920*1080 be comparable with 1920*1200 for inastance? Obviosly 16:10 screens will have more pixels than 16:9 screens if you choose to compare 16:10 screens with 16:9 screens with lower resolution. But you could choose 16:9 with higher resolutions than 16:10 as well and get the totally opposite result.
16:9 or 16:10 has nothing to do with amount of pixels. It simply is a width length ratio.
If you prefer higher screens you obviosly prefer 16:10 over 16:9.
If you prefer wider screens you obviosly prefer 16:9 over 16:10.
For any given screen diagonal length, a 16:10 screen will always have more screen area. Typically, for any given diagonal length and LCD panel type, a 16:10 screen will have more pixels than a 16:9 screen. Not always, as some 22" screens are 1680x1050 and some are 1920x1080.
For that matter, for any given diagonal length, a 5:4 monitor will have the most screen area (and pixel area).
But it isnt neccessary a good thing to have more screen area for any given diagonal length.
As you mention if that would be the case we should dump both 16:9 and 16:10 for 1:1.
Granted. It's just nearly impossible to find a 1:1 monitor, very hard to find a good 5:4 or 3:4 monitor compared to either 16:10 or 16:9.
Personally, I prefer 16:10 because I like the extra screen space and pixel area. In similar form factors, 16:10 provides more of both.
More intresting should be to compare monitors in similar pricerange and 1680*1050 is similarly priced as 1920*1080 while 1920*1200 soon will have the similar prices as 2560*1440 monitors.
For that reason I cant really understand the comparisons cause if you buy a 16:9 you get far more pixels/$ than for 16:10.
Wolves said:16:10 doesnt give you more pixels than 16:9.
In fact 16:9 give you more pixels than 16:10.
Because your original statement was:
Not "if you buy a 16:9 you get far more pixels/$ than for 16:10".
You can't base "you get more pixels" on pricing because prices fluctuate. Once week you might be able to get a 16:9 monitor cheaper. The next there might be a sale and you can get the 16:10 for less than a comparable 16:9 monitor. It sounds like you're trying to shift your conclusion from aspect ratio size to pricing.
As I stated before, a 16:10 monitor will always give you a higher resolution than a comparable 16:9 monitor. Pricing between the two is a completely separate topic and involves many other variables (features, refresh rate, inputs, outputs, warranty, etc).
More intresting should be to compare monitors in similar pricerange and 1680*1050 is similarly priced as 1920*1080 while 1920*1200 soon will have the similar prices as 2560*1440 monitors.
For that reason I cant really understand the comparisons cause if you buy a 16:9 you get far more pixels/$ than for 16:10.
Because money can be replaced, and pixels cannot. 16:9 has an inherent physical disadvantage in that for a given screen size, it will always have a smaller screen area and (typically) pixel count. As long as there exists a 16:10 monitor that has the same diagonal length as a similar 16:9 monitor, this won't change.
So, to your point of 2560x1440, then why should we not use the 16:10 2560x1600 then? There aren't any 16:9 panels on the market now that are bigger. Sure, more expensive... but 30% more screen area and 11% more pixels is worth more to me than $300.
I cant see the disadvantage you mention. I suppose people buy the size they like. Unless you like a bigger screen than 27" this aint a problem. If you want bigger screens and higher resolutions than 2560*1440 it is just a matter of time before you get it in 16:9.
Why they should be 16:9?
* Cheaper to produce -> lower price
* Standard -> Most stuff are made for 16:9 nowadays. -> less problems
Things are made for 1080p, not 16:9 per se. Hence why I don't think 2560x1440 will take off yet; scaled content looks worse than native resolution content. Not to say it will look terrible, just not 100% quality. Marketing will have fits trying to sell a TV that makes 1080p content look worse and costs more than a native 1080p monitor. I have no doubts that the trend to 16:9 will continue. It's just that we don't have 2560x1440 content nor 2560x1440 tvs on the mass market, so for the near future, the cost will be comparable. Actually, the cost of a 16:9 screen at a resolution > 1080p (eg, Dell U2711h) is more expensive than than a 16:10 screen > 1920x1200 (eg, Dell U3011h), in terms of (list) $/area. Eventually, will it get cheaper? Almost certainly. But that's not the case right now. TV makers simply have no incentive to build 1440p tvs, and consumers probably won't want to spend the extra money on a 1440p 50" vs a 1080p 50" which makes 1080p content look worse.
I disagree with this is argument. The only reason why people talk about this is because size is told in diagonal (inches) which is the wrong way to do it. It is about marketing, not really an issue in 16:9 vs 16:10 apart from that it is easier to market 16:9 because they sound bigger than they actually are. Because oif this they sell better and the 16:9 monitors gets even cheaper to produce.The disadvantage is a physical one. Compare a 24" 16:10 to a 24" 16:9. The 16:10 is bigger. 27" screen? If someone made a 16:10 27", it would be bigger than a 27" 16:9. If I want a 24" screen, the 16:10 will be bigger. If I want a 20" screen, the 16:10 will be bigger. If I want a 50" screen, a 16:10 version will be bigger. If you say, for the same money, you could go up to a 25" 16:9 monitor; but then is that a similar sized monitor anymore?
scaled content looks crappy? well, I dont really agree but it is an argument. Still even with a 1980*1080 or 1920*1200 monitor most of the stuff will be scaled and because there are more pixels per area in 27" 1256+*1400 the scaled monitor will look better on that one.
Good to know. Personally, I dislike 16:9 and that would prevent me from buying that if I were using my own money.The prices on 2560*1440 is on the way down. Still this resolution is pretty new and electronics with new hfeatures are always expensive.
Hazro HZ27WC IPS with 2560*1440 is released any day now and is romoured to cost £400. I dont think you could find any 1920*1200 IPS bellow that price.
I disagree with this is argument. The only reason why people talk about this is because size is told in diagonal (inches) which is the wrong way to do it. It is about marketing, not really an issue in 16:9 vs 16:10 apart from that it is easier to market 16:9 because they sound bigger than they actually are. Because oif this they sell better and the 16:9 monitors gets even cheaper to produce.
You cant claim it is better. It is your personal opinion.Wolves - the point is 16:10 is BETTER than 16:9 for most PC functions (excluding movie watching). Why? Because look at your internet browser - most web pages are still more vertical than horizontal. Even on my 16:10 with most web pages there is a lot of blank space on the sides. On a 16:9, there is MORE blank space and less of the space vertically, so that means more scrolling up and down on a given page.
Likewise most of our reading pages are more vertical than horizontal, so MS Word etc can always benefit from a little more vertical.
If you are only a gamer, or you basically watch movies on your PC most of the time, then yes, 16:9 is for you (although the same can still be done just fine on 16:10). For the rest of us who do lots of PC stuff like internet surfing with the occasional movie or game, then 16:10 gives a better compromise.
Well, you are correct about that it is easier to market 16:9 but still that doesant mean that it is less good than 16:10.Unfortunately the 16:9 is winning (has won?) out - due to the drive for efficiencies and price. The industry just marketed everything as WOW! AWESOME! WIDESCREEN!!! and like usual, most people who have no idea just buy it. "I wants me one of them wide-screen monitors, Jeb, so's I can watch moovies on that there computer-machine." Honestly I didn't really appreciate the difference until I was researching monitors a few months ago, and when I saw the writing on the wall for 16:10 I jumped on my ASUS as soon as I could before they were gone.......
I like to think of it like Nehalem (16:10) vs Phenom II (16:9), and screen size being the speed in GHz of the processor. At any given GHz level, on average, a Nehalem processor will be faster computationally than a Phenom II. The Phenom II also costs less at that GHz. If there was always a Phenom II that costs the same as a similarly performing Nehalem, then there is no problem; the two architectures are comparable, subject to personal preference. However, Nehalem processors go just as high in terms of GHz as Phenom II's; there is an architectural disadvantage that the Phenom II's have with respect to Nehalems. Hence, we may say Nehalem is faster than Phenom II. Similarly, at any given diagonal/GHz, a 16:10 is bigger than 16:9. There always exists a 16:10 screen that is comparable in diagonal length that has more screen space, in theory (and currently in practise). Thus, 16:10 is "bigger"/offers more screen space than 16:9. Call it marketing if you want, but screen diagonals are what is usually compared when we speak of monitors.
You cant claim it is better. It is your personal opinion.
Many people dont browse the web in full screen? If you dont then your comment is irrelevant.
And todays games are made for 16:9 and 1920*1080. If you run new games in 16:10 you will see less of the gaming world.
Well, you are correct about that it is easier to market 16:9 but still that doesant mean that it is less good than 16:10.
the running of a game in 16:9 res on a 16:10 claim with black bars doesn't always pan out. I played around with several 16:10 monitors before deciding to go 16:9. some games would add black bars while others would just stretch and look slightly distorted. my main concern is gaming so I certainly see 16:10 as being a better overall option for many people though.But I get MORE PIXELS on a 16:10 than a 16:9. Assuming I have a 16:10 and 16:9 option and they're both the same price, how is it that fewer pixels is better? You can always run the "new game" on a 16:10 monitor with a 16:9 resolution and some black bars at top and bottom. I'd just rather have the extra pixels to work with.
But I get MORE PIXELS on a 16:10 than a 16:9. Assuming I have a 16:10 and 16:9 option and they're both the same price, how is it that fewer pixels is better? You can always run the "new game" on a 16:10 monitor with a 16:9 resolution and some black bars at top and bottom. I'd just rather have the extra pixels to work with.
No, you dont get more pixels with 16:10.
1680*1050 (16:10) is in the same pricerange as 1920*1080 (16:9). 1920*1200 is far more expensive than 1920*1080.
It is abit insane yes.I know this is deja vu, but BY DEFINITION you get more pixels on a 1920x1200 than you do on a 1920x1080. And while 1920x1200s may be dying, it wasn't long ago that they WERE the same price.
All the people are sayin' is that they wish the industry would still sell some 1920x1200 monitors. My last post clearly said IF THEY WERE THE SAME PRICE. I don't think that even you can come up with a way that 1920x1200 equates to fewer pixels than 1920x1080. Its more pixels. My post said more pixels. Yet somehow you respond with "no you don't get more pixels"
Ok this conversation is becoming insane