While I think it's a shame they don't make 1600x1200 anymore, I almost always have two windows side by side at all times, and 16:9 works just fine for that purpose.
Fortunately this is at least 1440p. But I agree, for a productivity monitor I'd prefer an even wider aspect ratio so long as they at least keep the 1440p vertical resolution. For a laptop, I'd prefer 3:2. So yes, 16:9 should probably die everywhere but TVs and perhaps gaming oriented monitors.
How will they handle burn-in. Productivity monitors have to be the worst for this. The task bar will be burned in in no time.
Yep agree 1440p is the selling feature here for sure. I do not agree about the 16:9 should die though I think there are room for both regular 16:9 and ultra wide's in the market. If a person does not the Ultra wide they can go 16:9 win win for everyone.
Why should just because you don't want to use it there are millions of people that do what to use 16:9 displays. I'm thinking you are slightly out numbered here.
Millions of people want to use 16:9 displays *for television* (and don't mind it for movies). Nobody wants 16:9 for laptops or PC monitors, but not many people are willing to pay a large premium for something else.
As a person who uses 30" monitor for almost 15 years, I really think that with such large size 16:9 or even something close to 2:1 for 40" is good aspect ratio for work. Mine is 16:10 and it's height is not very useful. If you would limit your "I hate 16:9" speech to laptops, I would mostly agree. Definitely not for PC displays as they are getting beyond 30".
Sorry but people use laptops and PCs for watching movies too so saying no one wants it is ridiculously absurd (aside from nerds I don't even hear people complain about aspect ratios of PCs; they used to complain about black bars from widescreen on old 4:3 TVs, and some still do about ultrawide formats on 16:9). If its that much of a hassle on PC/laptop they'll have an external monitor that they can rotate since working on laptop sized displays is honestly kinda terrible for a lot of stuff anyway). Plus with lots of software you can put menus and toolbars and the like to the left or right on 16:9 or wider. I do think there's more ideal resolution and size that 1080p (that is being used all over) is not currently meeting (24-27" 1440p is much better, wish we'd have 3200x1800 displays in the 32" range, and then larger than that 4K).
After using a Surface Book for about a year, I personally didn't feel like the 3:2 display was better for my uses (which included sketching and some general productivity stuff). Plus I think it was worse for that product as the height exacertbated the weight imbalance to make it less useful in your lap than if it was wider (but that's an issue for how they did the Surface Book and not most laptops).
The audience for this monitor is not watching movies. Although 1440p is welcome 16:10 or 3:2 would be much more appropriate for a large desktop professional monitor aimed at the business audience. Anyone involved in print design will know that we are designed to read up and down not left to right which is why newspapers are portrait format. Making monitors wider exacerbates the problem and takes up more desk space.
At this size, 1440 vertical is too low for a productivity monitor; text quality will suffer. 27" or 25" are the more suitable size for that resolution. At 30+", it should be more like 3200 x 1800.
Yeah, I've thought it odd that we didn't have another stopgap resolution between 1440 and 2160 on PC. And with the onset of slim bezels, I feel like certain sizes should have dominated (22" 1080p, 27" for 1440p, 32" 1800p, 37" 4K; 22" and 27" kinda did, shame the other two haven't).
The lack of a middle resolution between 1440 and 2160 is largely due to simple scaling. Each is 2^x times the pixel count of the standard lower 16:9 resolutions. A middle ground at the same proportions would require partial pixels to scale (not an option) or scaling different elements at varying ratios. Since HD and FHD are entirely dominant -- none of the other resolutions divisible by 8 were widely adopted -- no manufacturer is going to start producing panels in the 16:9 proportion that don't scale with existing displays. Closest we came was either 1600:900 displays, but few people purchased 900 screens, or 1366:768 which isn't actually 16:9 (it's a stretched 1024:768 in the transition from 4:3). Simply put, there weren't enough non-HD or non-FHD displays sold to justify mass production of a scaled-up version.
I have a 24" 1920x1200, and this monitor has the size/resolution I want for my next monitor. It gives about the same pixel pitch, which is still handy for old Windows programs that don't scale well.
1440p also means I don't need as much GPU power as if I went to 4K.
Ya, I much prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio, like 1920x1200. Sadly it 16:10 is pretty much dead. I'd love a 27-28" 2560×1600 monitor, but not finding one of them. I really felt the 16:10 ratio was perfect for work or play.
I could always pay $1000-2000 for a 30" in 16:10. No thanks.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
23 Comments
Back to Article
shabby - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
This 16:9 ratio needs to die on PC's.Rookierookie - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
While I think it's a shame they don't make 1600x1200 anymore, I almost always have two windows side by side at all times, and 16:9 works just fine for that purpose.3DoubleD - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Fortunately this is at least 1440p. But I agree, for a productivity monitor I'd prefer an even wider aspect ratio so long as they at least keep the 1440p vertical resolution. For a laptop, I'd prefer 3:2. So yes, 16:9 should probably die everywhere but TVs and perhaps gaming oriented monitors.How will they handle burn-in. Productivity monitors have to be the worst for this. The task bar will be burned in in no time.
rocky12345 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Yep agree 1440p is the selling feature here for sure. I do not agree about the 16:9 should die though I think there are room for both regular 16:9 and ultra wide's in the market. If a person does not the Ultra wide they can go 16:9 win win for everyone.Flunk - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Ultra short monitors are the most impractical.siuol11 - Friday, April 19, 2019 - link
It's not an OLED panel, there is zero burn-in.rocky12345 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Why should just because you don't want to use it there are millions of people that do what to use 16:9 displays. I'm thinking you are slightly out numbered here.drothgery - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Millions of people want to use 16:9 displays *for television* (and don't mind it for movies). Nobody wants 16:9 for laptops or PC monitors, but not many people are willing to pay a large premium for something else.qap - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
As a person who uses 30" monitor for almost 15 years, I really think that with such large size 16:9 or even something close to 2:1 for 40" is good aspect ratio for work. Mine is 16:10 and it's height is not very useful.If you would limit your "I hate 16:9" speech to laptops, I would mostly agree. Definitely not for PC displays as they are getting beyond 30".
darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Sorry but people use laptops and PCs for watching movies too so saying no one wants it is ridiculously absurd (aside from nerds I don't even hear people complain about aspect ratios of PCs; they used to complain about black bars from widescreen on old 4:3 TVs, and some still do about ultrawide formats on 16:9). If its that much of a hassle on PC/laptop they'll have an external monitor that they can rotate since working on laptop sized displays is honestly kinda terrible for a lot of stuff anyway). Plus with lots of software you can put menus and toolbars and the like to the left or right on 16:9 or wider. I do think there's more ideal resolution and size that 1080p (that is being used all over) is not currently meeting (24-27" 1440p is much better, wish we'd have 3200x1800 displays in the 32" range, and then larger than that 4K).After using a Surface Book for about a year, I personally didn't feel like the 3:2 display was better for my uses (which included sketching and some general productivity stuff). Plus I think it was worse for that product as the height exacertbated the weight imbalance to make it less useful in your lap than if it was wider (but that's an issue for how they did the Surface Book and not most laptops).
toomanylogins - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
The audience for this monitor is not watching movies. Although 1440p is welcome 16:10 or 3:2 would be much more appropriate for a large desktop professional monitor aimed at the business audience. Anyone involved in print design will know that we are designed to read up and down not left to right which is why newspapers are portrait format. Making monitors wider exacerbates the problem and takes up more desk space.guidryp - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Ultrawide (AKA ultra short) needs to die.16:9 only needs to make way for something with more vertical like 16:10, or 3:2.
Lolimaster - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
3:2 is the sweet spot, 16:10 is also good.Calin - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
1440p are absolutely OK with 16:9 aspect ratio - I totally agree on 1080p being too shortboeush - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
At this size, 1440 vertical is too low for a productivity monitor; text quality will suffer. 27" or 25" are the more suitable size for that resolution. At 30+", it should be more like 3200 x 1800.brakdoo - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
1440 on 32" is exactly like 1080 on 24". It's probably ok for most people as they don't complain about their 24" 1080p screen.darkswordsman17 - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
Yeah, I've thought it odd that we didn't have another stopgap resolution between 1440 and 2160 on PC. And with the onset of slim bezels, I feel like certain sizes should have dominated (22" 1080p, 27" for 1440p, 32" 1800p, 37" 4K; 22" and 27" kinda did, shame the other two haven't).Galcobar - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
The lack of a middle resolution between 1440 and 2160 is largely due to simple scaling. Each is 2^x times the pixel count of the standard lower 16:9 resolutions. A middle ground at the same proportions would require partial pixels to scale (not an option) or scaling different elements at varying ratios. Since HD and FHD are entirely dominant -- none of the other resolutions divisible by 8 were widely adopted -- no manufacturer is going to start producing panels in the 16:9 proportion that don't scale with existing displays. Closest we came was either 1600:900 displays, but few people purchased 900 screens, or 1366:768 which isn't actually 16:9 (it's a stretched 1024:768 in the transition from 4:3). Simply put, there weren't enough non-HD or non-FHD displays sold to justify mass production of a scaled-up version.boeush - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
"A middle ground at the same proportions would require partial pixels to scale (not an option) or scaling different elements at varying ratios."What are you talking about? 3200 x 1800 would be exactly 16 x 9, times 200.
guidryp - Wednesday, April 17, 2019 - link
I have a 24" 1920x1200, and this monitor has the size/resolution I want for my next monitor. It gives about the same pixel pitch, which is still handy for old Windows programs that don't scale well.1440p also means I don't need as much GPU power as if I went to 4K.
khanikun - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
Ya, I much prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio, like 1920x1200. Sadly it 16:10 is pretty much dead. I'd love a 27-28" 2560×1600 monitor, but not finding one of them. I really felt the 16:10 ratio was perfect for work or play.I could always pay $1000-2000 for a 30" in 16:10. No thanks.
GreenReaper - Thursday, April 18, 2019 - link
Regardless, I think we can all agree her spreadsheet cells are ridiculously big.Either that, or she needs glasses!
dromoxen - Tuesday, April 23, 2019 - link
No, I think her cells are about right or even too small..saying that, I do think I need glasses, even tho a recent eye test said I'm all good.