Off-topic but I wish 16:10 hadn't died with the move to 4k. I have an old 1200p dell ultrasharp in 16:10 and it's sublime compared to my other 16:9. You'd think it doesn't make much of a difference, but it really does. Especially when you have it vertically oriented, but otherwise too.
It's special. Just because people overload it with spurious claims doesn't alter its mathematical elegance. And seeing as how it falls out naturally from geometric figures like pentagons and pentagrams, people are likely to stay interested in it for as long as humans have 5 fingers.
Nor does it make sense for a monitor. I can't remember ever wanting to arrange a bunch of windows as a square, a smaller square, a smaller square, etc.
Not quite. ISO 216 paper sizes are designed so that if you split them in half you get the same ratio (1:sqrt(2), or 1:1.414). The golden section is so that if you take a square out from one side, you get the same ratio (1:1.618).
Hopefully historians in the future will be sufficiently advanced that when they look back on us 16:10 ratio displays won't rate the top 500 things they are horrified by.
It's less of a problem with 2560xN than 1920xN, in my view. I also prefer 16:10 to 16:9, but 2560x1440 has enough pixels vertically not to be disagreeable, and 1440x2560 is wide enough not to be cramped. I'd never buy a 1080p monitor, but I've found 1440p a most worthwhile upgrade from 1200p.
I can't stand 2560x1400 -- I swear by my 30" 2560x1600 (16:10) displays at home and at the office. The 16:9 ratio is just too skinny for anything but movies.
Yes, I've found 30" 2560x1600 (16:10) displays, specifically Dell U3014 are the current ideal. I expect in a few years I will cave in and purchase a pair of Eizo FlexScan EV3237-BK 32" 4K screens, but for now 30" 2560x1600 is a good compromise between cost and practicality.
Well, it definitely takes all sorts, because I use 2 side by side in portrait mode and I'm quite happy with it ;)
You're right about the length of the longer axis, though... I've rarely found it all that useful to have one view fill the entire screen. So I generally either have two 1440x1280 windows/panels/etc. on a screen, or one 1440x~1700 and one 1440x~860. That works pretty well. Many window layout tools will let you quickly set up this sort of arrangement.
I can relate. Open up a page like this [0] in a maximized window on a very wide screen and try to read. I ended up writing a Chrome Extension [1] to narrow/center such pages.
I don't like to see the noisy background. I also find it fiddly to do it manually. After I click unmaximize I will probably have to adjust each side of the window, which takes much longer and isn't really convenient (IMO).
I did exactly this, upgraded from 24-inch 1920x1200 to 27-inch 2560x1440. The aspect ratio change hasn't bothered me, precisely because of the increase in space. Much easier to have two files side-by-side now, for example.
So the thing that a lot of people miss is that unless you bascially 4x the pixel density and go anti-aliased... it doesn't actually help to increase the density when regarding reading.
The thing I've learned is that really I want a specific pixel per inch real world or I want a specific font size in inches real world. I sit comfortably back and the dell 30 lets me easily set my text at about 1/8" tall or 1/4" which is super easy to read relaxed in my chair. If I went for a increased resolution display, the font would just get smaller until I get to a 4x density... and I'm not really gaining anything until then either when AA smothing is a win.
But also since I jack my font up even more than usual for my distance.. I'm already anti-aliasing about 4x AA, so a 4x resolution bump would put me at 16xAA which is, I don't think, needed. I'd rather blanket my field of view with lots of large text than have one very nice high density display central that makes me lean forward and strain my eyes.
Comparing with a super-fancy Apple display doesn't seem that fair. Even today "1080p" monitors are not uncommon - for example the popular Dell XPS 13 defaults to a 1080p monitor. Also worth noting that 2560x1600 (the resolution of that monitor) is identical to the original Retina display.
If people really care about 16:10, it's available with reasonably good specs and they can buy it. If they don't, it will probably die permanently, but we can't exactly blame the market.
I think a "modern" 16:10 should be 3840x2400 (like the IBM T220, released in 2001) or 5120x3200. Neither of these exists in any display currently made.
This. Right now I'm sitting in front of 13,312,000 non-UHD/4k pixels, all in beautiful 16:10 aspect ratio. I expect that I will keep this setup until I die.
4k got me to stop complaining about the loss of 16:10. A 4k screen at 16:9 is still not as wide as even two 4:3 monitors side by side -- and you still get the screen real estate of four HD screens in one. Is the aspect ratio my favorite? No, but with this resolution my attention is almost always limited to a subset of what's on screen. The aspect ratio of the whole thing becomes increasingly irrelevant.
