4:3 is the best aspect ratio for computers

4:3 is the best aspect ratio for computers.
Discuss.

Attached: 4:3 monitor.png (698x547, 301K)

the Pentium 4 is the best CPU on the market
see I can sound retarded too

only if it's 1600 x 1200 or higher

> likes to waste pixels on pointless data that doesn't even improve "realism" or "gameplay"

i used to play on a 4k eyefinity 3x portrate desplay setup in 2012. im now on 1024x768. resolution means shit all. the most "realistic" game ive ever played is Stalker on a 1920x1200 monitor running non native at like 800x700 or some thing looked blurry and amazing and realistic. high res doesnt not = real.

fucking VR is the most "real" display you can get and its only 1000x1000 or 1400x1400 in the Pro/4k/8k bullshit models that are not even colose to 4k and literally deceptive.

and if you say some shit like you are a video editor or graphic artist or some thing you are a stupid cunt.

actual pro graphic artists literally only work in a 200x200 pixel area at a time. and pro teir video editors not stupid youtube larpers but actual ligit people have a second monitor tuned with fast controls for color standards for their preview. they dont need their preview on their editing window thats peak amature hour shit. they use a second monitor thats like basicaly a modern version of them PVM or what ever the retarded retro people buy that you can change preset color modes on with really fast and easy. beacuse they need to tune the edit to look good on like 50 diferent TV brands and codexs and players. having the picture and time line on the same screen is number 1 sign you are trash same with musicans people who spread out their entire song edit over 4k or some thing are larping scrubs actual pros just alt tab and use their brain and dont lay things out like a table beacuse its too overwhelming


even 1080p is excessive. 720p'ish is fine for content creation. and all use..

>720p is fine
I do a lot of work with multiple terminals open, and I'm glad I have a 1440p monitor. It lets me fit multiple terminals on the screen at once.

5:4 is just as good. I'm using a 1280x1024 display right now.

>1024x768
This is too low of a resolution for most things, be it programming or web browsing or spreadsheets. There's just not enough space. 1024x768 might be okay on something tiny like a tablet but not on anything larger than like 7 inches.

Let me guess, you also think CRTs shouldn't have been replaced by LCDs, complain about smartphones without physical buttons and pretend you care about Terry Davis to fit in

What's the best 4:3 monitor I can still buy today?

Graphic artist here
I went with a 21:9 (why not call it 3:1?) monitor and I'm never going back.
I remember the days of using 4:3, so much time wasted on zooming in and out because the toolbars and panels took so much real estate
So yeah fuck you and your retro sensibilities

>smartphones without physical buttons
I was with you at first, but seriously fuck this shit. I used to be able to use my phone in my pocket, or totally without looking at it. Try doing that with a modern slab without voice control.

>OP is the idiot who can't spot enemies on the map because his fov is shit
>modern images take more space than his monitor shows

Who cares, I haven't punched an actual number to call in ages. What purpose does dialing with the phone in my pocket serve besides a party trick

I haven't seen a 4:3 computer, only displays.

>who cares
Clearly I do you fucking mong. Phone keyboards are only for dialing numbers now? What the fuck planet have you been living on lately? Has SMS not been a thing there?

fuck you physical buttons on smartphones are great

I only use sms for broke ass relatives with no money for an actual smartphone and data plan and even then swipe is faster than any physical keyboard.

Boo hoo hoo I can't type with my phone in my pocket, except I can because any shit phone accepts voice commands these days.

So you're some rare outlier who does not use SMS (Are you fucking 80? How did you find this board? Do you simply not have friends?) and you presume to have any public opinions on this topic?
Rich, user. Rich. Dumb assholes like you are the reason phones lost their buttons and computers are losing their ports.

Attached: 1463408428206.jpg (604x603, 70K)

What the hell, you don't know that iMessage, WhatsApp and Snapchat exist and I'm the 80 year old friendless retard here?

Yes, because SMS stopped existing when those came online, how could I have forgotten.

No, I didn't forget I'm in a thread about circlejerking over deprecated tech

Well I'm glad we're in agreement. Slab phones were a mistake.

5:4 is closer to 1:1.
In conclusion, 5:4 > 4:3.
QED

Attached: Minagawa-akane-5879949c41d87p.jpg (314x426, 17K)

Why the fuck are you on the internet instead of writing messages on a typewriter and sending them over snailmail
Now THAT was tech

Last I checked, fax was still a thing. That's close enough.

But that monitor isn't 4:3, it's square. Trust me, I have a 4:3 monitor.

no idea where you got gaymes and realism from, 1024 x 768 is simply obsolete on a desktop when even 1080p is considered low res in 2018
>(why not call it 3:1?)
because it's not 3:1, that would be 27:9

I dont have a brainlet wojack dumb enough for this post

1.4:1 (aka 7:5) is the best ratio for human vision
medical monitors that cost more money than you make in a year

ipads and old laptops physically had form factors that followed 4:3 ratio from the display, pedant.
im partial to 2:3
its an objectively superior ratio to 16:10 and 16:9, while also being suitable for photography and video editing or consumption, and is available in higher resolutions at more affordable prices than 4:3 displays.

I guess we are doing another one of these threads again

Attached: g2018.png (1600x1000, 1.09M)

My biggest pet peeve with wider screens, is that RTS games look like ass.
Back in the day, you would have RTS games with the UI in the bottom (still allowing a comfortable 16:10'ish viewport for the game on a 4:3 monitor), or a side UI for 1:1-like game viewport.

These days you get a wide ugly bottom UI and ultrawide'ish game viewport, which just feels like ass. AoE2 HD is thankfully enjoyable due to the zoom level.

>4:3 is the best aspect ratio for computers.
With the right display technology, sure. Pretty sure that 4:3 flatscreens went out of production before the tech in them started getting competitive response and PQ-wise with CRTs.

Attached: 853568A6-752F-42C7-B663-5234495ADBDE.jpg (4032x3024, 2M)

Past a certain size, wide monitors such as 16:9 or even wider offer better returns. Tilting your head sideways is more comfortable than looking up and down.
Of course, for relatively small sizes, 4:3 (or 5:4) are much better. I'd take a 4:3 14 inch monitor any day over a 14 inch 16:9 monitor.
Past ~27" or so, however, it's better to have more width than more height.

suck my cock nigger
terry was an absolute mad man and doesn't deserve your cuck bullshit

Terry was the cuckest though
Literally cucked by bbc

how about you fuck off back to your cubicle you dumbfuck cia nigger

>complain about smartphones without physical buttons
Seriously, at least 2 buttons should remain physical: accept/send call and reject/end call

You can reject and end calls with the power button. Not sure why you'd need an accept button of you're going to check the screen for the caller ID anyway

I'm probably replying to bait but you dumb nigger do you not realize you can still get a phone with physical buttons? No one is forcing you to use a smartphone.

fuck off back to r*ddit you nigger
analogue is way more tactile and generally better

I posted this, but after thinking more I've never actually used 5:4 and 4:3 side by side to directly compare them. And I've never used a 1:1, but that Eizo sure looks nice.

He is a graphic designer after all...

5:4 1280x1024 is the best resolution

Honestly, 3:2 is great, even 16:10 in a larger 15" notebooks is fine.

But I'm not buying a small laptop with 16:9 screen, that's why I'd never buy a thinkpad.

>actual pro graphic artists literally only work in a 200x200 pixel area at a time
This is actually objectively false. Please put a bullet in your brain you disinfo spreading faggot.

This What you should do is define the acceptable range of vertical motion (that is, vertical angle) and start off with a small square that becomes a wide rectangle as its height approaches maximal vertical size (which is defined by the angle and distance). As the display becomes wider it becomes important to actually curve it or otherwise you waste a lot of display area and wouldn't be able to reach even 180 degrees coverage. The biggest display could either be defined with maximal horizontal neck movement or just a full turn if you accept rotating whole body (which I would).
>open a program
>dialog appears behind you

And yes, I consider around 4:3 - 5:4 to be the most natural for most activities. Right now I have the Jow Forums window sized at 1300x1040 (out of 1920x1200) and it feels approximately the comfiest for me. However the situation becomes complicated when you introduce multiple windows/tiles. When considering a laptop display I like it to be wide enough to fit 160 characters across. This led me to 15" 4:3 T60 which is maximum comfy but is a bit big. I'm using a 12" one on a daily basis so I just get by with vertical split (and an old 19" 5:4 display at home).

>discuss
yea right as if this website is the place to discuss anything
just say your baiting everyone to shitpost their best next time

How about 4:3 T60 or X60/X61?

they're still not competitive most of the time.

>What purpose does dialing with the phone in my pocket serve besides a party trick
Pretty handy when you're outside during winter

1:1 is the patrician ratio

CRT is a much better technology than LCD.

1) Perfect black levels
2) Flawless off-axis viewing
3) Much faster refresh rate than LCD
4) Warmer, more natural image (thanks to scan lines and small granules)
5) Far longer life-span
6) Not subject to manufacture problems such as dead-pixels
7) Good range of compatibility with lower or non-standard resolutions without blurring

Given ultimate space and money the world's best CRT could easily crush the world's best LCD. So tell me Jow Forums, why do you like your inferior screens that companies such as Samsung have brainwashed you to think is better than what already existed? The only cost-savings are on their end.

And the funny thing is you guys keep buying this crappy LCD technology and giving away your free CRTs on Craigslist. A fool and his dollar are soon parted I guess.

But it's not on the market...

Based.

Attached: 1543402298268.png (1280x720, 1.1M)

????
Of course it is

I can't stand the noise crt's make, it's just awfull high frequency pich, every crt has it.

Why are autistic people allowed to post here?

>1 solution is best for all different use cases out there
Dude youre so retarded its not even funny at this point...

Attached: 6.png (780x428, 132K)

I have one and I like it but I think it's making me drowsy, I can't get work done on it. Also it makes my eyes hurt unless I make it 5500K instead of 9600K

>7:5 best for human vision
Source? And what's the closest to it, 16:10?

for laptops*

>he hasn't taken the 16:10 pill
>can't watch movies without giant black bars
>monitor isn't big enough for split screen

Attached: SmugNero.jpg (401x401, 53K)

Why do you want 4:3 when our eyes see 1:1?

I have a 21 inch flatscreen CRT and a BlackBerry KeyOne. I can't give that much of a fuck about Terry but he's pretty based for coding an entire OS and if he wasn't schizophrenic he could've gone places no mere mortal could go.