God, I fucking hate 16:9 screens. You cannot do any real task comfortably on them, they are just there to please Netflix normies. 4:3 was amazing for productivity, you could browse the web a lot better without wasting the 40% of your screen surface like with this modern meme-screens.
I wish a modern 4:3 laptop existed.
ragie wagie
user but u could get an old refurbished thinkpad and upgrade/replace parts as needed.
Just change the resolution to a 4:3 resolution?
buy an X62 if you can find one
sadly the highest res 4:3 monitors I was able to get are 1600x1200
1.78 is okay, but we need to go
W I D E R
21:9 a best
this
Closest thing you can get which is relatively modern is a 2015 Chromebook Pixel with 3:2 screen.
16:10 was the real deal. Great for office work.
What are you on about? It's good for having code on one side and documentation on the other. Or are you gunna tell me your dwm doesn't do tiling out of the box?
i used 16:9 then swiched to 4:3
didnt regret
This but with 3:4 secondary screens at both sides. Pixel-perfect 1200+2560+1200x1600
I have 2 monitors, a 16:9 and a 21:9
I'll say this, while I can do more on 21:9, everything seems to work nicely with 16:9 since it's the standard these days. I can maximize the window and not have all of this fucking space go to waste. I'm not always looking left or right or manually centering windows. I don't have pesky black bars with most content I watch.
>pesky
Well, I was all about 16:10 and was rolling a 1920x1200 screen forever.
Then I went 4K, and it's actually useable with 2 windows side by side.
4:3 laptops were hardly any taller than a screen now. Just get a 16:9 and don't maximize your windows you retard.
just got a UP3017 and I'm loving the extra vertical space
Just run your monitor at 4:3 and ignore the black bars. Moron
>we can't use words that weren't invented on the fucking internet because it might be reddit
Ok
>Just get a 16:9
based. I got the UP3017 back in January and I love it too
Yeah, you're paying a big extra for this.
I don't like it either, but 16:10 is the only real choice for people without endless pockets.
Fuck, meant 16:9
umm, and the pixelbook
16:9 is fine as long as you have a huge monitor, like 32''+
Yup, why pay $1000+ for 16:10 when a 32" or 43" 4k panel can be found for half that price?
And the 4k panel is perfectly capable of running 2560x1600 if you wanted. Or some larger custom 16:10 ratio resolution.
>Or some larger custom 16:10 ratio resolution.
The largest 16:10 custom resolution for 3840x2160 is 3456x2160. Which on a 43" screen would give you a roughly 39.5" 3456x2160 16:10 display.
Tolerable 4K displays start at $1400
P O R T R A I T
O
R
T
R
I
T
16x9 is the same as 4:3 faggot, because 16:9 is just 4^2:3^2
go rant somewhere else
What a joke you are. Keep pretending.
Imagine being this dumbass Paying $1000 for 30" 2560x1600 (100 ppi)
When he could have paid $500 for a 39.5" 3456x2160 (103 ppi).
Oh right, there's a sale on Dell website. MSRP is actually $1800
>And the 4k panel is perfectly capable of running 2560x1600 if you wanted. Or some larger custom 16:10 ratio resolution.
You could do that. You could also remove your head from your ass and realize that this severely downgrades your screen real estate.
The dell P4317Q isn't good enough for you?
Literally neck yourself.
Not to mention LGs 43UD79
... How is 3456x2160 severely limiting screen real estate?
It's 7MP instead of 8.2MP big deal. Still far more than 2560x1600
>72% NTSC
>WLED
That's a 14% decrease in screen real estate, user. 16:10 is only better than 16:9 if the result is a taller screen for the same width, not the other way around.
I paid $750 for my up3017. New.
Stop being jealous lmao
OH, so you need color accuracy AND 16:10?
well good thing the only people who need that are professionals who's jobs pay for it regardless. So price isn't an issue if it's necessary equipment for your work.
OH, you're actually just autistic and don't have a job paying for it? Enjoy your shitty overpriced 16:10 from 2012, or enjoy 16:9 like everyone else.
What native 16:10 monitor even comes close?
That's still not wide enough
1:5 master race
Or whatever 5760x1080 is
OH so instead of a $500 waste, it was only a $250 waste. Cool story.
None. But so what?
Are you actually so hell bent on muh 16:10 aspect ratio autism that you're willing to throw every point there is to make in favor of it in the garbage bin just to satisfy your autism?
jealous af lol. Have fun with those shitty colours and dead pixels
I love weebs pretending to be dum dums on Jow Forums.
... What?
What the fuck is wrong with running a 3840x2160p (16:9) at 3456x2160p (16:10) if you prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio?
Obviously it's not as large as the native 16:9, but since there are no 16:10 native alternatives even near that size and resolution... What's the problem?
Have fun with washed out contrast and shitty panel size because your display was designed in 2014 at best.
I'd much rather have a monitor capable of showing 4k content since 4k content is actually easy to find these days.
>OH, so you need color accuracy AND 16:10?
No, I need color range for animes and vertical space for shitposting. I'm actually fine with inaccurate colors and any aspect ratio.
I got PA301W years ago, long before consumer-grade 4K was a thing, don't feel like upgrading yet but if I had to I would get 4K.
>Obviously it's not as large as the native 16:9
That. That's the problem.
You 16:10 autists always praise the aspect ratio for being "larger" or "more productive" or "having more screen real estate."
But you know what running a smaller resolution than your monitor's native resolution does? It takes all of those points and throws them away. You gain nothing from it, as you only have screen real estate to lose.
What you should care about is contrast ratio, brightness, and pixel density.
Unless you mean color space, which is generally irrelevant unless youre editing media for distribution, or comparing content across various panels.
Get a surface pro/book/laptop 3:2 is pretty fucking nice for productivity
Nigger, I'm not advocating against 16:9.
My point is anyone buying a native 30" 16:10 2560x1600 display when you could just buy a larger 16:9 4k instead for less money is a retard.
IF you live 16:10 that much, buy the larger 4k panel and run it at 16:10.
I myself run at 16:9 and have no issue with it
rotate your laptop
What the fuck?
dwm's tiling is meme tier
>contrast/brightness
My ancient CCFL backlight still works perfectly at 80% contrast and 40% brighness.
Sure most WLEDs are inferior to it, but any decent rgb-led or quantum dot should be fine.
>color space
>irrelevant
Enjoy your washed out bland "photorealistic" content.
>pixel density
Not with the current state of windows ui scaling, unless you mean to avoid any panels denser than 120dpi.
>unless you mean to avoid any panels denser than 120dpi.
That's exactly what I mean.
And yes color space is mostly irrelevant unless you're editing media or watching HDR content.
3:2 3840x2560 is where it's at
Agreed. Why do my eyes have to run cross country just to see the entire screen? Eye fatigue. I minimize everything on larger screens and waste all the outlying screen real estate.
This might have been a problem if I still using a single 16:9 screen, but I have two 16:9 monitors and one 16:10 monitor so I have all the screen estate I need. If I had the desk space for it, I wouldn't mind going for more screens.