Which one any why?

3:2 Because my Surface is 3:2

Attached: 1444147795148.jpg (615x567, 56K)

Honest question: Why is it called 16:10 and not 8:5?

16:9 because I can purchase it at a sane price with much better specs than anything in a similar price range but in non-standard aspect ratios.

I have nothing against 3:2 or 16:10, or any of the other aspect ratios, but you can get fucked if you think i'm paying 100-500% more for an identical panel that just happens to be a different aspect ratio.

To draw an easy comparison to 16:9 for brainlets aka normies

Assuming a hypothetical scenario where the display are absolutely identical in everything but the aspect ratio the answer is fuck you, this never happens. If you need more vertical space you get a bigger display - end of discussion.

>normie
You are part of the problem.

My 27" 16:9 monitor is just the right height and I get extra space on the sides. I wouldn't want it to go any higher up because it would make reading uncomfortable. If I get a widescreen monitor that's tall enough I just get more space to move windows. If my monitor would be as tall as it is wide it wouldn't be comfortable anymore. Imagine reading something that's way above your eye level. Sounds awful.

Thanks, that's what I aspire to be.

Attached: 1515706455478.jpg (277x296, 24K)

fpbp
8px by 16px font
160 characters wide
64 characters tall
its fucking perfect

3:2 desktop monitors fucking when?
Imagine 3840x2560 with a pair of 1440x2560 on the sides.

What I really want is a 2560x2048 monitor sandwiched between 3840x2400 monitors with a projector screen above them

3200 x 2400 4:3 WHEN!

In practical terms, 16:10 today in consumer monitors is going the way of the dodo. 2560x1440 and 3840x2160 are quite affordable today and 16:10 equivalents are very rare or basically don't exist at all. Lower resolution 16:10 screens have less work space and/or lower DPI and are overall inferior to these 16:9 options.

3:2 is a very nice aspect ratio, I'm really enjoying that on my tablet. It's very nice for a screen which isn't very large, physically speaking. It works well for pretty much everything and is especially great for reading in portrait mode. Manga also fits great on a 3:2 screen since it's very close to the page AR most of the time.

Well, you can buy one of those Surface AIOs with a 28" 4500x3000 screen.

While 2560x1440 can be considered an upgrade from 1920x1200, the problem with 3840x2160 is that it's either way too big for desktop or requires scaling, which only really works acceptably at 200% making the display effectively 1920x1080 and why the fuck would anyone with 1920x1200 display want to downgrade to 1920x1080?
>manga
This but also for phones. Fuck gooks and their 2960x1440 displays for infinitely scrolling webtoons, give me a 2560x1600+ phone to read manga on.

3:2 on laptop
4:3 for readers/tablets
16:9 for desktop monitor because I can just resize windows if I want to and fuck having to "hack" every game to support my non-standard aspect ratio

>muh gaymes

3:4

The correct term is normalfags

Post programming socks

Currently on 16:10. That little bit of overhead room does help with reading documents. However I find myself wanting some extra space to keep a reference document.

Thinking of of moving up to a curved LG 38" 21:10. Strangely enough they market it as 21:9, but it's 1600 not 1440.

>which only really works acceptably at 200%
This isn't true, I have 2 3840x2160 27" screens that I use at 125% scaling. That's perfectly fine for my eyes and my viewing distance. The standard/recommended scaling factor is 150%, you'd have to be insane to use 200% on a 27" screen since everything would be fuckhuge. 200% is only useful if the screen is small, like on a tablet/ultrabook with a high-DPI screen or something like that.

Can you post a pic?

Of what exactly?

What I mean by acceptable scaling is the way Windows handles low-dpi applications. At 125% or any other setting you get blurry mess. At 200% you get crispy nearest neighbour.
As for UI/font size on desktop I prefer 130-150dpi so for example for 2560x1440 even 25" is too big.

Nearest neighbor looks terrible on many applications, I can also personally vouch for that because I also have a Surface Pro 6 which I keep at 200% scaling. Any application that doesn't understand DPI scaling by itself in order to render properly generally looks terrible.

Non-integer scales don't necessarily look blurry. Windows has per-application settings to configure how scaling is handled, plus you can enable the "old" way to handle DPI scaling by setting it to a custom factor. Most programs (like WinForms applications) will scale and render properly, so there's no image upscaling at all. You won't really see anything blurry or upscaled at all if you configure it properly.

Pic related is what standard W10 200% scaling does to an application, taken from my Surface. You can see how terrible this looks, I assure it's not very pretty on the higher DPI screen either.

Attached: Capture.png (1272x1586, 94K)

I know how 200% looks, I have 2560x1600 10" chinkshit display. At a dpi that high nearest neighbour looks fine.

21:9

I guess your tablet has slightly higher DPI (~300 vs ~270, no big difference), but that shit most certainly doesn't look fine to my eyes.

Using 3*16:9 monitors making up 48:9.

3:2 fags gtfo

Also for comparison's sake, this is what the same application looks like on my desktop with 125% scaling. It doesn't quite scale perfectly since the table headers don't scale at all for some reason, but the main content it displays renders properly at 125% with no image upscaling at all, it's just larger. Lots of programs scale even better than this, without bits of text remaining small like in this case.

Attached: Capture.png (742x896, 51K)

Here's how it looks like on my machine at 175%
How did you make it render properly at 125%?
Actually it's not a tablet but 10" display that I use as secondary on my desktop.

Attached: image.png (1278x1548, 435K)

To change the scaling mode you can either set a custom scaling factor (125 in my case) in Display settings > Advanced scaling settings or you can use compatibility settings on a per-application to set scaling mode to Application. The custom scaling factor is system-wide, mind you. It's not like the newer scaling settings which are per-monitor.

16:10 or 16:9

Oh I see. Unfortunately my main display is a regular old low-dpi so I can't use system-wide scaling.

I actually have 2 3840x2160 screens and one 2560x1440 screen in portrait, all 27". In my case 125% works decently since the difference isn't that big, plus I only really use the portrait screen for certain applications and I've configured some of them individually, for instance I've set Firefox to use 100% scale despite the system-wide 125% setting because I do my browsing on that portrait screen.

There are some other settings W10 added to prevent blurriness, I think it was something about using the DPI of the screen the application was first started on or some shit like that, but I didn't test those out since I'm pretty happy with how my setup is working. The only application which bothers me is Steam that I have to keep at 100% despite it having built-in high-DPI support, because of a Steam bug.

I have a 24" 2560x1440 and have it at 100%, no scaling. Feels fucking good.

make it 48:10 or 48:12 and I'll be jealous

3:2 - $2000+ Surface laptop
16:10 - $1500+ Macbook
16:9 - Everything else

I don't have a monitor like that but I'd imagine I'd also use it at 100%. Even 3840x2160 @ 27" is actually generally fine for me at 100%, but 125% feels overall more comfortable.

10:16 or 9:16,
rotate be amazed how much of page you can see.

OwO notices ur furfox

>lgbt
>furryfucks
pottery

8:5

3:2 for laptops since vertical space is as a super premium there.
16:10 was nice for 30" 2560x1600, but I admit those days are gone.
I am fine with 16:9 now on 43" UHD and will stick with that form factor through 8k arriving some day.

Surface Monitor for next year or so

two portrait orientation monitors for 18x16

Attached: 1540720338404.png (387x350, 78K)

Had this on my wishlist for awhile but they want $1300 for it. 1920x1920

Attached: kRC222u[1].png (686x390, 205K)

just get double monitors