1366x768 can go eat SHIT

10xx should be the lowest limit.
sure, having 4k on a 12inch display would be retarded but 768 is only acceptable for 10 or lower or if you don't plan to be productive with your shit anyways.
even fucking text editing is disgusting on 1366x768@12" or even bigger.

Personally the resulting display ratio feels comfier to me. Also, when I'm in front of a wide or super wide screen I feel like I'm in front of a fucking media consumption device instead of something I want to do actual work on.

If you're okay with widescreens then go for it, it's mostly a mater of taste.

The worst thing about 1366x768 is it's not even 16:9. It can't be because 768 isn't divisible by 9. I would honestly prefer 1280x720.

for me, it's 2560x1440

Attached: 1544007939900.png (866x866, 648K)

>not 2560x1600
nigger

???

Attached: 1534561602093.png (763x1119, 369K)

>tfw 1680x1050

weird ass resolution.

Loved that res back in the day, before 1920x1080 got popular.

Full size 16:9 content without having to drop into fullscreen.

Attached: Untitled.png (1920x1200, 2.01M)

More lines of text.

Dell would like a word with you...

I've already had a word with Dell, and I'm not dropping $800+ on a monitor that doesn't even ship with Gsync/Freesync, fucking come on

found the non programmer

>no excuse
There is if you want to play some retro games. Playing old stuff in MUH ULTRA HD makes everything look like blurry pixelated puke. Or if you want to play newer games on high settings without shelling out hundreds for the latest meme video card. And when it comes to important shit like coding, I have no problem working with that resolution.

>retro games get blurry
at 1366x768 they get ESPECIALLY blurry, unless you mean retro games that run in 1024x768 or 512x384 (which would be really uncommon) and then you'd have to be able to do pixel doubling without it trying to scale up to the wide ratio which is also a problem.
So this means if you don't have the chance to double it without interpolation, what you want is a high as possible resolution to minimize the interpolation gradient pixel size. 1366x768 is both too high and too low for good retro game consumption.
>Or if you want to play newer games on high settings without shelling out hundreds for the latest meme video card
That is true though. For normal gaymen it's alright, especially if you prioritize higher FPS over resolution on a budget.
>programming
Maybe on the go but at least in my case I fucking hate staring at a small screen for anything text focused and that resolution on 15" or even higher is to me absolutely puke inducing.

>which would be really uncommon
For late stage DOS early stage Win95 games, it's pretty common. I should probably clarify though that I set up my GPU so that it renders smaller resolutions without stretching them, so I'll pick something 1024x768 resolution and have it fit vertically and have black bars on the side.

who the fuck cares you manlet autist

>early stage Win95 games
AAAaah, now that you say it, I think I remember it as a setting for Motocross Madness! Fond memories. I kept playing it in 320x200 though mostly because my 486 wasn't cutting it otherwise, kek

>he complains while posting on a Cambodian basket weaving enthusiast bulletin board for manlet autists

>16:10
Based.

I'd like to say you know what's up but you're a default taskbar user.
So I'm just gonna call you a retard.

>but you're a default taskbar user.
What would you suggest him to use instead?

>not building your own monitor

4k peers down from it's tower at the worms writhing in the mud of 768p

I've found another one.

forgot the pic

Attached: vertical.png (1080x1920, 197K)

The human eye can't see more than 1366x768

Attached: faba5cce-89cc-4f11-ae97-c35c6f4a1bfc.jpg (640x640, 72K)

hi fellow 16:10 fren, that's not weird ass, that's the best resolution for monitors. don't get tricked by monitor jews

Attached: ackchyually-actually-meme.png (320x306, 30K)

my laptop can't handle much more than that so i don't mind

why did 16:10 die its the best aspect ratio

Attached: 61138859_p0.png (1280x960, 1.04M)

4:3 is better fags

how do you feel about those ultrawide monitors with 768 vertical pixels?

Attached: paper-1820x768.jpg (1820x768, 254K)

That's quite homophobic of you.

1600x1200 bitches

I have a 1366x768 monitor. The only other monitors I have ever tried were either a massive TV or a 800x600 CRT. I think it's alright.

I use an old 16:10 monitor as my secondary monitor

I want to get new monitors, but I don't want to lose pixels.

I basically get a free taskbar

Yeah, that's why I replaced my x240 screen some days ago.

Full HD on 12.5" is so much better

I literally cannot understand how "people" could tolerate inability to see two pages of text (or two documents) side by side with a decent 16 font?

Even 1920 is not quite enough.

>grug only walk on dirt road
>grug tried cobblestone road
>grug think cobblestone good, grug no understand why cavemen say cobblestone bad

Attached: 1525881594704.jpg (235x215, 9K)

1680x150 master race

>1680x150
what is this, cinema for ants?

1600x900 gang

I have 1360x768

Attached: 1560158792018.jpg (518x388, 12K)

I got a 16:10 monitor for free.
I was dumpster diving

Attached: 1557623476285.png (181x84, 9K)

2560x1600 Master Race

It's not just the resolution being shit but
>1366x768 being shitty TN and under 60% sRGB and 200 nits or less
>5400RPM HDD

IN 2019

What will it take for manufacturers to stop producing this crap? Both of these are completely unacceptable now.

RPM HDD
Fucking right, that was pure fucking pain even over a decade ago. It's actually mindblowing how much fresher an old laptop "feels" once you stuff a really fast HDD or a cheap SSD into it. I still like HDDs but _FUCK_ those 5.4k fucking shits. FUCKEM.

>What will it take for manufacturers to stop producing this crap? Both of these are completely unacceptable now.

well, people are buying this crap. as long as they do, nothing will change

Is this 2010?

Attached: tard above me.jpg (300x302, 20K)

2560x1440 ftw

As the manufacturers