What happened to 16:10?

[cooper69]

really, what happened to it? did all display manufacturers just want to switch to 16:9 and it became the new standard? was there any other incentive to switch to 16:9?

i remember back in the day where every single monitor i've seen was 1440x900, 1680x1050, 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. now everything is 16:9.

nothing against 16:9, I just personally prefer that ~11.1% more vertical space with 16:10 and curious to know what exactly happened

 

[PrincessFrosty]

The bottom line with this is that 16:10 was a more suitable standard for PC monitors for a few different reasons, the problem was that 1080p panels made by TV manufacturers drove down the prices of these displays drastically where as 16:10 was exclusive to PC, it was just market forces with cheaper panels that won out.

Also I think it's mostly to blame for stagnation at 1920x1080, we'd had a rich history of increasing resolutions until then, since then we've only really seen 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 become popular, and of course 4k lately which is just another home theater standard.

 

[ninaholic37]

I prefer 16:10. I always thought they switched to 16:9 because it was cheaper and marketing of diagonal length made it seem like it was not screwing people over.

 

[JimKiler]

I prefer 16:10. I always thought they switched to 16:9 because it was cheaper and marketing of diagonal length made it seem like it was not screwing people over.

But as long as you get more real estate when you upgrade no harm is done. Yes I went from a 24" 16:10 with 1920x1200 to a 27" 16:9 with 2560x1440 but i still get more vertical space than my old monitor.

 

[Puffnstuff]

My current dell 2709w has 16:10 which I also prefer for the height with the width. I really wish that I could get a 32" curved screen in 16:10 so I could have my vertical real estate along with the extra width. The current batch of 21:9 monitors are just too narrow vertically for my tastes and even with a 34" screen I would lose almost 1.5" of vertical screen. I want to see more of my documents not less and that goes against my goals.

 

[JimKiler]

My current dell 2709w has 16:10 which I also prefer for the height with the width. I really wish that I could get a 32" curved screen in 16:10 so I could have my vertical real estate along with the extra width. The current batch of 21:9 monitors are just too narrow vertically for my tastes and even with a 34" screen I would lose almost 1.5" of vertical screen. I want to see more of my documents not less and that goes against my goals.

that monitor is 1920x1200 correct? If so and you upgrade to a 1440 or 4K monitor you will see more vertical space than your current dell 2709w assuming you use the maximum resolution.

 

[crashtech]

I think 4:3 is still great for actual work unless you have a gigantic monitor. I am a dinosaur.

 

[borderdeal]

I missed the 16:10 format too but once you go 1440p or higher it is really good because u still get more vertical space for work. 4k is great, I can accommodate 4 screens that are similar to 4 24" monitors and work really good with them or can slice the screen on 3 slices. I am loving my 4k for work and for the occasional gaming I do.
This is the program I use to slice the screen:
http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/sslicer/index.html

 

[xthetenth]

I think that 1440 is a good height for single windows, I think the height of 4k might be a bit little to stack windows on top of each other, to be honest, and until we get that, the best way to get more windows is going wider.

 

[n0x1ous]

This is a positive thing about apples notebooks which remain 16:10

 

[coolpurplefan]

This is a positive thing about apples notebooks which remain 16:10

Doesn't that mean TV shows in 16:9 will appear with black bars?

 

[BFG10K]

Also console games are 16:9, as is Bluray. Also media like Youtube is 16:9.

I prefer 16:9 (1080p) because it's so ubiquitous and means it's the most likely to work without problems. For example, anamorphic-only content like Fear 2 and Chronicles of Riddick, which don't look right at 16:10 (fisheye and/or black bars, and no real way to fix it).

I find it much more immersive watching content without black bars, and 1080p content fills my display beautifully with a 1:1 mapping.

I also dislike anything wider than 16:9.

 

[Zim]

Call me a snob, but 16:9 is for movies and games while 16:10 is for people who want to use their computers for computing... like writing software and word processing and doing productive stuff that doesn't lend itself well to using a TV. I despise 16:9 for reason that don't stand up to any logical analysis.

 

[beginner99]

Call me a snob, but 16:9 is for movies and games while 16:10 is for people who want to use their computers for computing... like writing software and word processing and doing productive stuff that doesn't lend itself well to using a TV. I despise 16:9 for reason that don't stand up to any logical analysis.

Don't like 16:9 either. I mean it's ridiculous. Browsers changed their whole UI design just to be able to show more of the actual page on a wide-screen.

1 trick I like and most users don't want to implement is to move the windows taskbar from bottom to left/right. Whatever you prefer. (I don't like auto-hide at all). This gives you 40 vertical pixels more. So you have 1080 compared to a 1200p user with taskbar at bottom with 1160. Difference isn't that huge anymore.

 

[crashtech]

1 trick I like and most users don't want to implement is to move the windows taskbar from bottom to left/right. Whatever you prefer. (I don't like auto-hide at all). This gives you 40 vertical pixels more. So you have 1080 compared to a 1200p user with taskbar at bottom with 1160. Difference isn't that huge anymore.

Hmm... you have a good point there.

Edit: I can see how hard it will be to change a 20 year habit, though!

 

[beginner99]

Hmm... you have a good point there.

Edit: I can see how hard it will be to change a 20 year habit, though!

Yeah, but you get used to it within maybe 1-2 weeks. For sure easier to adjust to than say the Win 8 Start Screen or the Ribbon.

 

[JimKiler]

Hmm... you have a good point there.

Edit: I can see how hard it will be to change a 20 year habit, though!

Yeah, but you get used to it within maybe 1-2 weeks. For sure easier to adjust to than say the Win 8 Start Screen or the Ribbon.

as soon as i got win 7 at work i put the taskbar on the right side of my left monitor. I got sick of how far i had to move the mouse to accesst the taskbar when i was using the right side screen.

 

[CakeMonster]

16:10 was quite critical for vertical viewing space and visibility/readability at 1920x1200 and 2560x1600. But now with 4K that doesn't matter much. I have no problem with 16:9 in the future.

However, right now we are in weird place, and I am annoyed because the 2560x1600 monitors are not getting 120hz nor FreeSync/Gsync. So someone with a good quality 0-6 year old IPS 2560x1600 monitor has no good upgrade paths at the moment. You can get 4K but not with a high refresh rate (and the GPU requirements for gamers at 4K are crazy). And you have to downgrade in size and vertical resolution to 1440p if you want more features like 120hz or FS/GS.

I'm sure in 2+ years this will be sorted out though.

 

[amenx]

16:10 was only mattered to me when it involved 1080 vs 1200. Once 1440p came around, it became largely irrelevant.

 

[Kadarin]

21:9@3440x1440 is where it's at. All hail the UltrawideMasterRace!

 

[tidy]

.

 

[atticus14]

I still use a old 27" 1200p and it is fantastic, and I while I'm not a big enough snob to say anything like 16:9 (or similar) is unusable...it sure is less satisfying. Sadly 16:10 just isn't a mainstream panel type and always carried a premium and over time 1440p prices slowly made their way down, and it no longer made sense to spend premium money for a 1200p panel vs a little more for 1440. Despite the same 16:9 ratio, resolution generally trumps anything, so 1200p and generally 16:10 is just a dead format and no manufacturer really invested in 16:10 after that, though there was a few 1600p panels. (4k is about to do the same to 1440p over the next couple years but not only will it be better, it will be cheaper, due to mass market manufacturing. But thats resolution wars and not ratio wars.)

 

[xthetenth]

Don't like 16:9 either. I mean it's ridiculous. Browsers changed their whole UI design just to be able to show more of the actual page on a wide-screen.

Do it right and get tree style tabs for your browser or if you have to settle something that stacks tabs along the side of the window rather than the top. Having more tabs and tabs' names fighting for the same dimension is terrible and obscures information when you need it most.

 

[amenx]

Don't like 16:9 either. I mean it's ridiculous. Browsers changed their whole UI design just to be able to show more of the actual page on a wide-screen.

1 trick I like and most users don't want to implement is to move the windows taskbar from bottom to left/right. Whatever you prefer. (I don't like auto-hide at all). This gives you 40 vertical pixels more. So you have 1080 compared to a 1200p user with taskbar at bottom with 1160. Difference isn't that huge anymore.

Your argument doesnt seem to be against 16:9, but rather against 1080p. Since 16:9 1440p is superior to 16:10 1200p in terms of vertical space. That leaves you only with 1440p vs 1600p. Then 2160p > 1600p. So ultimately 16:9 offers greater vertical space when you really want it.