If your screen is more of a rectangle than a square you need to stop using computers

st

16:9 is cancer and I never noticed I had cancer for years.
Even 16:10 is vast improvement.

I recently brought a x60 tablet with a 4:3 screen. Holyshit.
When did everything go wrong?

5:4 as an aspect ratio is better but there aren't really any 5:4 displays out there that are a higher resolution than 1280x1024. I prefer 1600x1200 monitors just because you get more space while maintaining a 4:3 aspect ratio, which is pretty good.

But I think that we can all agree that 16:9 is for subhumans.

Attached: 2019-01-14-011526_1600x1200_scrot.png (1600x1200, 766K)

Attached: 2019-01-05-104220_1024x768_scrot.png (1024x768, 203K)

No appointments for today, eh?

Just use the peak monitor

Attached: Compleley-Square-1920-x-1920-Pixels-Monitor-Launched-by-EIZO-465512-2.jpg (1500x1000, 125K)

My screen is just a collection of squares.

This
Why was 1:1 never a thing? It's literally a perfect aspect ratio. Equal screen real estate vertically and horizontally. But then of course this fucker is $1,500
Why must I suffer through lopsided meme ratios

h-how much does this cost?

Who else 9:16 here
Horizontal fags need not apply
If you haven't taken the vertpill yet you are cucking your visual experience

Attached: dell_p2417h_24_16_9_ips_1465579225000_1258849.jpg (345x345, 11K)

amazon.com/FlexScan-EV2730QFX-Monitor-1920x1920-EV2730QFX-BK/dp/B00R58MLSY

Attached: pepe rope.jpg (600x630, 22K)

Jesus chirst
sticking with 1200x1024 then.

a square is a rectangle user

16:9 is more suited for the human field of view. Our vision is more rectangular. It's why portrait mode video looks so retarded.

no its not your a complete moron.
>DURR MY EYES ARE INCHES APART ON MY FACE. DURR 16:9 CUASE DURRR

Your eyes have more horizontal rotational freedom than vertical rotational freedom. Humans are creatures adapted to being able to survey the horizon.

not when concentrating on a single thing. which is how you use a computer. a computer screen isnt something to study. its something to "monitor". by the way those stupid lcd and led screens arent monitors, they are screens.

and you can only monitor somehitn ddireretly in front of you.

do you monitor for deers in a horizon? or do you scan? if your hunting.

fuck it you have no intelligence and shit you say doesnt matter to anyone
>how do i know
you use a 16:9 lcd screen that they threw everyting on it including that stupid shitty resolution x:x and other stupid shit to try to get rid of crts

As I purchased a 4K display, I realized that splitting it by two makes every part almost square: 1920*2160. DisplayFusion seems to be supporting it.

>what is peripheral vision
Are you blind user?

like i said asshole you cant see shit there,

do you read from your peripheal vision stupid retard. can you read from yuor peripheal vision you stupid nigger

>just shit and stalks withotut thinking

You seem a little upset user.
As I said, the human field of view takes up roughly the same aspect ratio of a 16:9 monitor. So it makes sense for displays to be that size as they're the most comfortable for people to see. Normal people without tunnel vision, at least. Having that extended vision helps me see stuff from my peripheral, to which I can swivel my eyes to get a more detailed picture.
But hay, maybe your failure to understand other people preferences isn't the only tunnel vision you have.

Squares are rectangles you mong

i think these are different kinds of vision
there must be a reason books, or this very site are vertical

The entire world isn't a book. And I'll be the first to agree that, for reading text, 16:9 is far too wide and a more vertical aspect ratio would make sense like. But for other types of content, like movies and videos, 16:9 is preferable, especially when the micro-aspect of text is considered, it's not as jarring narrowing text down on a 16:9 display than it is increasing video on a 9:16 display, if that makes sense.

16:10 is hands down the comfiest aspect ratio. I can see everything on the screen at a reasonable viewing distance without moving my eyes around unnecessarily. Humans have two eyes arranged side-by-side. It only makes sense that we have a rectangular field of vision. Monitors should cater to this.

You have to be 18 to post here.

>not having three 16:9 monitors for optimum screen space

Attached: Untitled.jpg (4920x1920, 2.39M)

>blah blah blah
you cant focus on things to the side. there is no reason to make peripheal view a thing on something you work on. there is no work to be done that you are using visual queues to do on a computer. everything is directed directly at you.

stop repeating the same old shit. you havent even debatted me but talk about our vision not what the purpose of even using a monitor is for. why would i
read
watch a movie
or do any off that dumb shit with my peripheal vision

why would i buy something to make some to display and monitor that would encompass that ridiculous retarded thing

fucking stfu

>excuses to say that lcd led monitors are good and crt are russians

16:9, 16:10 only good for entertainment
4:3, 5:3 for productivity

Go to bed, young one.

16:9 is asian eye shit which is only good for watching movies as the immersion in a scene is convenient for the eye in such perspective but for power users who needs more lines of data than horizontal columns it's very bad
thank hollywood

yeah i mean, do people with detached monitors actually not do this? you're writing code and shit in a little horizonal strip designed for showing movies?

brainlet never had a real job

2 pages of text side-by-side IS THE MUST

fucking NEET

>If your screen is more of a rectangle than a square you need to stop using computers.

this means that anyone who has a screen that isn't exactly a square needs to stop using computers, including yourself

>mathlet detected
All squares are rectangles. Here, I drew this helpful diagram.

Attached: untitled2.png (960x640, 5K)

5:4 is an aspect ratio not a resolution.
Also, planning on buying a 1600x1200 monitor, is this a good monitor cnet.com/products/sony-cpd-e430-crt-monitor-19/ for 25 euros?

>unironically running dwm

I love the empty calendar and "todo".

>but there aren't really any 5:4 displays out there that are a higher resolution than 1280x1024
Yep, this is pretty much the only readily available squarish resolution that's not a mid 2000s refurbished 1600x1200. Waiting patiently for the 2400x2000 lines to be announced.

This. Any person with a desk job would fucking know that

16:9 is garbage, but 8:5 is truly the best ratio.

A square is a rectangle.

5:4 isn't a resolution you sputtering retard, and the only square is 1:1

Durr what is filesystem caching