1920x1200

Attached: 1920x1200.png (1920x1200, 40K)

over DVI it is the patrician choice.

>1366×768

Attached: images.png (241x209, 7K)

768 vertical pixels on anything over 10" in almost 2020 is a fucking disgrace.
There are limits where resolutions make sense but 15" laptops or even bigger monitors with that resolution is a fucking joke. It's basically the XGA 1024x768 we had in 1990 with a widescreen bodykit.

>3000x2000

Attached: a31.png (510x405, 177K)

>1920x1200
Based resolution. Hope it makes a comeback.
I would expecially welcome it on laptops.

3000x2000

Attached: Hc35OCO.png (513x372, 443K)

It what I got on my desktop. Thankfully companies still make business monitors in based 16:10 aspect ratio.

is 4K good choice for programming? Or should I stick with full hd

Dem premiums, though.
Best thing about my old laptop was the 16:10 screen.

>1440x900

Attached: a.jpg (711x400, 71K)

Had 1600x1200 on my CRT from late 90s up to 2009 or so, then TFT with the same rez and then couple years later to 1920x1200 on 24".
At least in my case it's just ideal. Looked at 4k and while it's really neat looking I feel like I don't really "need" it and I'm not a big fan of buying beefy shit just to keep that resolution fluid at all times.
1920x1200 just werks, for my graphics stuff, enjoying content and even some gayming sometimes.

my t410 is pretty nice, but I wish it had a higher 16:10 res display

I wish my u3011 had higher refresh rates or freesync

>2736x1824

Attached: 1314048401035.jpg (288x499, 71K)

Absolutely based resolution, I will resist the 16:9 mene until the day I die

>1024x768

Attached: 1563649437906.png (266x309, 85K)

1080x1920 :)

I'd really like 2560x1600p (16:10)
I think that'd be especially great on laptops
But it'd be based.

Also, 3840x2400 because obviously.

16:10 mustard race

>640x480

Attached: flat,550x550,075,f.jpg (550x413, 65K)

based and chadpilled /thread

Attached: 4K.png (4096x2304, 35K)

>1280x1024

Attached: images_7.jpg (226x224, 4K)

puny

Attached: 2019-09-03 11_15_23.png (2246x1230, 291K)

>1280x800

Attached: 86543869530300.jpg (680x472, 32K)

>2246x1230
Microscopic.

Attached: firefox_2019-09-03_17-20-07.png (7680x4320, 965K)

>2736x1824
what on fucking earth

Attached: snacking_stops.png (394x632, 472K)

>1920x1080

Attached: d74.png (680x677, 267K)

I can use super resolutions too

Attached: 2019-09-03 11_28_00.png (7680x4320, 1.02M)

1920x1080

Attached: 1920x1080.webm (1920x1080, 2.05M)

take a 3440x1440, and flip it sideways, comfiest scrolling times to be had

Anything other than 4:3 is a meme.

is this some trickery?

Attached: Screenshot_20190903_183047-why-not-more-vert-space-and-not-actually-browsing-fullscreen.png (3840x2160, 299K)

lmao imagine actually using Jow Forums like this

No, just super resolution on a 4k panel.

Even full screen 4k at 100% GUI scale it's a bit silly to use for Jow Forums

1440p is about as large as I go for Jow Forums browsing.

perfect aesthetic

Nah, 2560x1600 over DVI is the patrician choice.

the only good thing about macbooks is having a 16:10 ratio and also the only feature that all these retarded manufacturers don't implement in their macbook clones
16:9 is crap

wat

What's so great about 16:10?

Just feels right.
Probably because golden ratio.

So why did manufactures keep making 1366x768 panels for so long when 1600x900 seemed much more reasonable? It baffles me that they sell laptops after Windows 10 was released with 768 vertical pixel screens and 5400rpm drives. Microsoft should have forced higher standards with their OS licenses.

>1366×768

Why does God hate me? I've been stuck on this resolution for nearly 10 years.

Attached: 1509921369987.gif (162x162, 100K)

comfy on my 12" Laptop

would not use it on my desktop monitors tho

oh, nvm. just did skip it and didnt notice the 1200
fullHD is comfy on my laptop