4:3 vs 16:9

what's better?

Attached: ThinkPadX60.jpg (250x208, 7K)

Other urls found in this thread:

goodmenproject.com/guy-talk/stop-saying-ad-hominem-if-you-dont-know-what-it-means-bbab/
youtube.com/watch?v=PLO8Yt0OwMQ
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakshagana
twitter.com/AnonBabble

1:1

Depends what scaling you want to watch fullscreen videos at. The ratios should also be associated with a larger or more compact laptop.

16:10

4:3 is better to perfection

4:3 of course
good luck finding something 4:3 with modern hardware though

fpbp

>he doesn't have both to use interchangeably for different tasks

16:10 for laptops. 4:3 is a bit tall in my opinion. it feels like the screen's gonna topple over

16:10 for gaming, 9:16 for reading, 4:3 for working in terminals.

5:4 best
4:3 okay
16:9 stupid

16:9 ONLY for me, please.

4:3 is a really nice ratio for laptops. 16:9 is way too wide. Or not tall enough. Whichever is the case. 16:10 is better, but still not as good as 4:3.

4:3 for web browsing and writing things, 16:9/16:10 is useful for writing to a reference in split screen thoughm

Honestly - irrelevant. I feel if I changed to 4:3 it would be amusing for a few months until I got used to it. 16:9 would be equally amusing for you fags if the standard was 4:3 and 16:9 was just rarely used. Fags here always find a reason to be "different"

Although I do have to give a plus to 16:9 when used vertically. Too bad I only use my laptop

i pads are 4:3 and modern.

4:3
More are for same diagonal. I hate 16:9 and 16:10, literally 16X2 LCD, nothing fits, have to use 2 monitors, while on 17 inch 4:3 I had no issues.

Mate, I use 4:3, 5:4, 16:10 and 16:9 daily depending on utility and out of those I still prefer 4:3 the most. Though 5:4 is nice too. 16:9 is by far the worst of the bunch, it just sucks. There isn't enough vertical space. It only works in portrait mode.

4:3 are really nice for laptops. But I don't see the day they're doing a come back.

16:9 is the designated shitting ratio.

this

>16:9 is by far the worst of the bunch, it just sucks. There isn't enough vertical space.
I feel like this isn't fair. After a certain point there must be diminishing returns in how much you'll be arsed to crane your neck to see above. Where resolution and price are no object, I feel like 16:9 must be the best as a single monitor setup. 21:9 is probably irrelevant since multiple monitors of smaller width would angle the screens better.

The what? If you want the best for single monitor setup, like best for normal usage and watching movies there is 16:10. Thats the aspect ratio that has the benefits of "muh movies" from 16:9 and just enough vertical space to be useful for anything other than gaming/watching movies.
16:9 is just inadequate.It's like you can fit 1 application on it and you're done. 21:9 could work as a dual monitor replacement, but as you say - why bother when you can just get 2 monitors. Maybe curved 21:9, there's something to think about. Certainly great for gaming.

I was saying in the context of literally any resolution, I feel like 16:9 might be a fair choice. You wouldn't work on the equivalent of bedroom wall: there's a limit to how much vertical space you need as a human being. Once that ceiling is hit, it's just more natural to hunger for horizontal real estate.

I wasn't really talking practical application, like what you come across every day. I was just saying that in theory it's not that fair to completely shit on 16:9, since at absurd resolutions and sizes you just won't need vertical space anymore after a point.

aspect ratio matters very little. Resolution matters. Anything smaller than 1600x900/1280x1024 is unusable to me.

A 16:9 monitor with the same amount of vertical space as a 16:10 monitor is REALLY FUCKING WIDE. That's the problem. But it's not wide enough to replace 2 monitors.

4:3

Attached: IMG_0030.jpg (2728x2728, 1.6M)

16:9 1366x768 master race

It's such a shame it went out of fashion

This, really. Doubly so for laptops and tablets.

based user

whichever one fits the laptop better without wasting space on the sides of the keyboard
that's why the x60 series is so good.
I like 4:3 honestly but I think that I would like to have 16:9 on a desktop with a separate verticle monitor for reading and typing.
>not 16^2:9^2

You already know 4:3 is vastly superior for anything that's not muh games, or muh movies. As much as I miss tall screens, these threads get kind of boring.

it's not even 16:9, it's 683:384, that's literally the lowest common denominator. Abhorrent resolution.

Approximation is fine w me

X62

You all who are arguing for 16:9 have fallen victim to marketing. The only reason widescreen ever came about for computers is because it's a really easy way to cut costs because a 15" 16:9 monitor is smaller than a 15" 4:3 monitor. Unless the screen is IMAX huge, widescreen is a dumb gimmick.

3:2 ofc are you stupid

Attached: Captura de pantalla_2018-06-09_00-44-02.png (1086x605, 381K)

i've heard good things about 4:9

I don't really understand what niche 3:2 occupies. It's only slightly taller than 8:5(1.5:1 vs 1.6:1), not a real compromise, and then it misses out on the golden ratio appeal too.

For reference, 4:3 is 1.33:3, and 16:9 is 1.77:1

16:9 is popular, so it's what the tech I use has. Not many options outside of the desktop for non-16:9 displays, and I just like 16:9 best out of the aspect ratios I've tried.

3:2 4500x3000

3:2 3000x2000 best resolution

Attached: IMG_20180606_120318.jpg (4608x2304, 2.75M)

15 inches is 15 inches. You're thinking the 4:3 one is taller, not bigger. It's the same area.

4:3 but only because modern websites don't even fill a 16:9 or 16:10 screen. You get less space for web browsing on a modern ultrawide monitor than a decades-old CRT.

This.
I bought T60 because its the last good 4:3 laptop. Upgraded it with T7400 cpu, 2x2gb ram (3gb useful), SSD, 1600x1200 screen and modded it with LED backlight. Works great on linux and its actually usably fast on XFCE for work like programming and such.

Much more cozy than my rMBP which is basically useless for endless PDF reading, writing papers and drawing schematics which is what I need a laptop for. Only downside is horrible battery life which is why I carry the rMBP around still.
4:3 15" feels like at least 22" on widescreen.

lmao are you this guy?

Attached: aspect ratio.png (1284x1809, 1.27M)

anyone who agrees with this are mactoddlers

t. AU optronics/Sharp/LG/InnoLux shill

Depends.
4:3 is better for general Office work.
16:9 is better for most gaymes.
It's all really about preference and type of work you're doing. None of these is "objectively better"

>4:3 is better for general Office work.
Why? What can you do on 4:3 that you can't on 16:9?

>16:9 is better for most gaymes.
I feel sorry for you kids with your widescreen spreadsheets and games that only have left and right.

Attached: widescreen-is-better.jpg (422x586, 57K)

You see more of a standard A4 page Word uses.
On 16:9 you'd have to turn the monitor 90degrees to see the document better.

Do you mind linking the LED mod you used for the T60? I've been thinking of doing the same to mine.

I don't know what the fuck you're on about. There is no advantage.

Attached: um.png (1920x2160, 302K)

It doesn't work when you frame your 4:3 inside a 16:9.
Try to left the same diagonal inches for both rectangles first.
>murrican education

which part of "depending on the resolution" you failed to understand, retard?
protip: 1600x1200 4:3 monitor vs 1600x900 16:9

Has anyone here shared the experience of the 3:4 world wide web? I used to have a 1600x1200 monitor that rotated. It was pretty neat.

Can't get it anymore

Damn, I sort of wanted to build an X62t

>which part of "depending on the resolution"
Nobody has said that, ctrl-F it. Are you speaking to some imaginary ghost? He didn't even mention resolution, you're fucking retarded.

>Can't prove anything so I'mma resort to ad hominem.
Got it, you're a retard.

Some data for whoever doesn't see the argument:
Heights for a 10-unit diagonal:
1:1 - 7.07
4:3 - 6
7:5 - 5.81
3:2 - 5.54
16:10 - 5.29
16:9 - 4.90
2:1 - 4.47
21:9 - 3.93

Right now it's x210. Seems like they have no plan on making more x62 boards. Looking forward to build my own x210

>le ad homimen maymay
I explained what's your error. Then called you a retard.
Its not an ad homimen. Get your facts right.
goodmenproject.com/guy-talk/stop-saying-ad-hominem-if-you-dont-know-what-it-means-bbab/
Dumbfuck.

Damn, only reason I was interested was for a modern 4:3 convertible. I guess I'll just stick with my XT2 now.

>Ratio
4:3
>In fractional form
=4/3
>Squaring both the numerator and denominator, leaving the ratio unchanged
=(4^2)/(3^2)
>Simplifying
=(16)/(9)
>Written as a ratio
16:9
>They are both literally the same thing. It's high school math you brainlet.

So are you gonna show me what the inherent advantage 4:3 holds over 16:9 anytime soon, you retarded monkey?

(You)

Attached: hmmm.jpg (800x655, 45K)

16:10

Kek

Samefag confirmed

Yes.
youtube.com/watch?v=PLO8Yt0OwMQ
Go to 4:33. David explains that for a given diagonal measurement, the 4:3 monitor has more vertical space and more viewing area. This one is more notorious when you have the same DPI in both monitors.
You have less screen and you're paying the same. Granted, FHD and beyond is nice, but you, theorically, could get the same if not more working area with high resolutions.

Attached: images(3).jpg (241x231, 12K)

Attached: retard.png (362x120, 5K)

Technically, if you resize the window you can get any ratio, no? So what's the big deal.

heh

No.
You still dont get the same viewing area.

This is some pajeet tier shit. Kekked

Attached: Final_Boss.jpg (465x493, 35K)

What kind of sacred super llama is that?

This proves nothing but the fact that you edited the source faggot.
>Script kiddie confirmed

Laptop and getting shit done 4:3

Prove that edited it in first place.
You got rekt and now you're mad.

I kind of feel bad too. If i miss this x210, it might not happen ever again.

Chankreejeesh Brahasutragupta, chief tech support supervisor, street shitter supreme, collector of bobs and vegana slayer, final boss of the tech support dungeon.

So in some rare obscure ass cases you can get more inches per dollar when buying 4:3 instead of 16:9 (this price argument only applies to 19" monitors), fine.
Great, that only took like 5 posts of brain tumor induced nonsense muttering about Word documents and turning the screen 90 degrees.

In summary: 1440x1080 offers no inherent advantage over 1920x1080.

That's a dude dressed up for a traditional musical drama. Performers generally have pretty elaborate makup.
More info here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yakshagana
>Source: Pajeet here. Hope I was able to help you today sir.
Note: This conversation may be monitored or recorded for quality assurances purposes. Your continued participation in this conversation serves as express consent to be monitored or recorded.

Imagine how big Apple could make their trackpads if laptop screens were still 4:3

>Kekked

>Wtf does that even mean. Talk english you pajeet faggot.

Kek'd hard.
Thanks, user. Love to both of you.

>x210
Literally does not exist

>1440x1080 offers no inherent advantage over 1920x1080.
Now you're getting it.
And 1920x1080 offers no inherent advantage over 1920x1200.

9:16

Attached: front_90.gif (1572x1872, 626K)

Kekked hard and kekked good. Wew lad

>Not look hard enough

>And 1920x1080 offers no inherent advantage over 1920x1200.
That's not true. You can see more of a Word document vertically on 1920x1200 than you can on 1920x1080, this is not to say that 16:10 is an advantage to 16:9 in this case, it has to do with resolution and not aspect ratio. You seriously don't know shit about what you're trying to argue about.

>It's x201 you shrivelled dick mommy's little parasite
And it has a 16:9 screen

>Run portrait on my 27"
>Have to literally move my neck to see shit at the top

>Not having a knee level monitor
"Gaymer" fag

>God Tier
√2:1

>High Tier
3:2
16:10

Mid Tier
4:3
16:9

>Bad tier
21:9

Shit tier
1:1
2:1

>Knee level
>Monitor
You alright there, mate?