Search results

I'm very interested in these pictures, but it would appear that you've reached the Photobucket traffic limit or something. Could you update the links, please? :)

The TN is a TN, the U2311H is an IPS. You -should- see a difference :p

Fat knees.

But you get more pixels if you buy 2560x1600. Uh oh, that's the highest resolution of modern widescreen monitors. Looks like you STILL don't have a case.

1920x1200 > 1920x1080. I get more pixels buying the 16:10 monitor than I do if I buy the 16:9 monitor. You are making no sense. With 2560x1600 I also get more pixels than 2560x1440. What's more important, I get VALUABLE pixels. Pixels that will increase the amount of lines of code on my screen...

And again, your links turn around and bite you in the ass :) "Although it’s advantageous to having more space to work, it will help some more than others depending on what they are working on. Larger screens could also have positive health benefits for workers such as less eye squinting."...

You're the one with the doubtful claims and something to prove. I have proved everything I have said so far - you've proved nothing but the fact that you're a troll. And by that exact logic, 1920x1200 > 1920x1080. It's funny how you've completely given up on proving that 1920x1080 >...

And as I have said, that's bullshit. It doesn't matter how many 1920x1080 monitors you give me for the price of one 1920x1200, I'll still be missing pixels in the vertical direction. Also, we don't know that two 1920x1080 monitors are more efficient than one 1920x1200 monitor - not at all. There...

Haha! Well, I keep wondering why a member of 4chan suddenly finds an interest in [H]ard|Forum, because I seriously can't think of any other troll cave he could have come from >_>

It doesn't matter if I buy a $150 16:9 or a $300 16:10, I will still have fewer pixels. Even if I buy two 16:9 monitors, I will still not get any more of the vertical space that is so valuable to me and anyone else who uses their computer for work-related purposes. Go get a job in which you...

You didn't read the studies, so you wouldn't know. You've never done any work on your computer, so you wouldn't know. I'm sorry, but I can keep repeating this over and over until you get it. You have no knowledge of how valuable the extra vertical pixels are to people who use their computer for...

What he said. 1080 pixels is just not enough for anything nowadays. Not even web browsing, unless it is strictly forum posts or API documentation. 16:9 is too wide to work well with PDFs in portrait mode. 16:10 is way better for this purpose. Notice how A4 is actually squarer than 16:10, and...

I've asked you before not to bullshit me. Why do you keep doing it? We know from studies that dual-monitor setups can improve efficiency, yes. You are correct. "We" also know (I put "we" in quotation marks, because you don't have any experience with real world usage of PC monitors, whereas I and...

I don't understand how you can possibly believe this drivel yourself. Are you just saying this to stir shit up? It makes no sense. The 120 pixels mean quite a good amount of extra lines of code, documentation or website visible. If my budget is one good 16:10 monitor, I can't get two good 16:9...

@Oled Your argument is so flawed I don't even know where to start... Two 1920x1080 monitors will not give me more vertical space than a 1920x1200 monitor, and like tk-don says, if I chose two 1920x1080 monitors for the same price as a 1920x1200, I'd be getting two bad monitors instead of one...

My old AOC 7Klr CRT started smelling really burnt, so I had to tell my brother to invest in a new monitor. He refused until the day my dad came into his room and smelt it :p

I don't find silly reasons to hate 16:9. I have a Dell U2311H myself, which is 16:9. I've tried to justify my purchase, but the fact remains that I'm at a loss when it comes to productivity. I would have been better off with a 16:10 monitor, simply because it's better for all purposes aside from...

You already said hor+ is a proper render engine strategy. I argued why it isn't. Compensating for lack of width by increasing vertical FOV for 4:3 is superior to hor+, but like I also said, it's not quite as easy to implement as hor+. And I'm still failing to see why gaming is the only concern...

Very, very interesting opinion on what a properly designed game is. What you are stating here is basically that a properly designed game is one that gives players with certain equipment an advantage over others. I don't think it's unfair to state that a properly designed render engine is one...

Again, if the source is a computer, the GPU can control the scaling. This is how it is for all modern graphics cards, and it was how it was for modern graphics cards 2 years ago too. I know that there are some issues with ATI drivers, but there are fixes readily available with a bit of Googling...

The only conclusion to draw from this is incompetence, sorry. Any 16:10 monitor will display its 16:9-counterpart with black bars if the source is a modern graphics card. You can, indeed, force anamorphic scaling in all games, so long as your graphics card is set up properly. So, assuming gamers...

It depends 100% on how you define "quality". To you, that extra inch does nothing because you only play video games and watch movies, it doesn't affect your perception of the quality of a monitor. To a person who spends a lot of time scrolling up and down in documents, for instance, where the...

It's actually blackbarophobia. It's not a disease, it's a mental disorder ;) Edit: I apologize for the triple-post, but as they are replies to different people, I thought it better to seperate them :3

The ironic part of this comment is that while the discussion has a vast amount of evidence arguing the many advantages of 16:10, the OP has, in fact, a very strong bias against 16:10 :p With that said, any kind of "vs" thread like this is for the sake of arguing. How many AMD vs. Intel...

I don't understand the relevance this has to the topic of the discussion. It sounds more like "wouldn't it be cool, if..." than a real evaluation of aspect ratios. I'd like to hear of some real-world tasks that would benefit from your imaginary immersive "monitors", and how you have trained your...

With the way the resolution pairs work (that is, with a fixed horizontal resolution), 16:10 provides more screen real estate, and by the evidence in many productivity studies readily available through Google, 16:10 is superior to 16:9 today. The highest available resolution in modern consumer...

No, it's better if we continue in private messages.

Oled, I read the article. You posted the link several times. You don't need to paste the whole thing in here. I'm just asking you to back up the claim, but you clearly can't, so I'm going to leave it at that, and take that report with a grain of salt.

That's the same link you've posted close to a dozen times now. I'm asking for a link to the report that backs up your claim. If that link had the evidence that backs up your claim, I would not have asked for it again. I'm also not harming any messengers, but I am inquiring documentation that...

Link?

But that article you posted gave no evidence of that preposterous claim. If you prefer to believe your own twaddle, be my guest, but could you please stop flooding the forums with your zealotry? Imagine if you were a complete newbie in this field, and some dastardly troll told you to buy a 15"...

There is no evidence to back up your claim in any of those links. Would you like to try again? I'd also like to point out that your links prove you wrong: Video standards. Looks like your bias should now shift to 5:4, as it is (according to your own link) the aspect ratio standard providing the...

Okay, here's some homework for you. I hope Wikipedia is a reliable source for understanding basic mathematical operations. When you've studied this article briefly, I'd like to you work out these three exercises. The first two are basic multiplication exercises, and the last one is an exercise...

1920x1200 > 1920x1080 2560x1600 > 2560x1440 Don't. Talk. Shit.

The problem is that he isn't stating opinions, but making fallacious claims. He didn't say "I think 16:9 is better" or "16:9 is better for me", but straight out "16:9 is better for most tasks" - a claim he has no evidence to back up. Opinions are fine, fallacious claims - not so much.

Ah yes, that one Wikipedia-article you keep bringing up, which actually proves you wrong. I quote: As for your second argument, absolute twaddle. Consider the popularity of blogs. Give me a link to one popular blog that benefits more from a wider screen than a taller screen.

Where is your source to prove that less vertical space is better for most tasks in May 2011 than it was in February 2009? Without trustworthy sources, and in the knowledge of your strong bias, your method of debate can only be classified as sophism. I hope you (and incautious readers) are aware...

Just a link to back up this statement. Page 6 mentions aspect ratios 4:3 and 16:10. As you can see, the document is from 2007, and there is nothing about 16:9. Another similar report dates back to 2005 with similar content. So according to this, 16:10 was the standard before 16:9 was introduced...

1920x1080 is a cheaper cut, and that's the only reason 16:10 is dying out. This has been confirmed with trustworthy sources in several threads, and many a post also dictate that 16:10 is better for pretty much everything if you aren't a "blackbarophobe". Sad but (partially) true (see below)...

Just gonna refer to this post (and the anamorphic scaling section in the link provided) to refute this preposterous claim. If you have your eyes set on a monitor ideal for you, don't hesitate simply because it's 1920x1200 instead of 1920x1080. It has the exact same capabilities as a 1920x1080...