So I'm probably buying one of these if the price is not too outrageous, it seems like it's close enough to 4:3 to capture the same feeling.
What I notice is that despite aspect ratios becoming wider, the monitors have pretty consistently also become taller in absolute measure. What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained
For me, for monitors and PC work, it comes down to OS UX. Sure, I can have all of my windows display at 4:3 with gaps either side, or on one side, but: (a) configuring that to be persistent is a pain, and (b) whatever fills that gap is either wasteful (empty space) or distracting.
The default on the other hand is to have anything maximised span the full width, which means that unless I'm reading a well-designed webpage (or reader mode), I'm inevitably straining to traverse a much bigger horizontal context with my eyes all day long.
Yes, 2560x1920 would be by far the preferred option of all 3, but if I need to choose between 2560x1440 and 1920x1440, the latter is a worthwhile compromise.
Dell 3007WFP and the Apple Cinema HD display were both ~16" tall. They're over 15 years old now. They were a expensive at the time, but they're still taller than most modern 16:9 and "27:9" displays available now.
>What I don't understand is why I'd ever want 1920x1440 (4:3) monitor over 2560x1440 (16:9) one, unless I'm really space constrained
I want a 4k 4:3 screen. If you're going to dream, why not dream big? 3840x2880 please. I have a CRT that syncs to 2560x1920 and I already enjoy it for a few odd things.
Though you can technically do it, I found most things just don't work well with a 1080 monitor in this mode: 960 wide just isn't enough. Even a lot of websites don't really work properly, and a lot go into mobile layout.
This was a good combo of screen space, usability and price.
Full screen movies or games are still 16:9 (supposedly there are/were issues with 32:9 with a lot of games), and I like that I can play a game or movie and still have the other screen showing something. I can also RDP to my work laptop in full-screen on one monitor, and seamlessly work across both - so much simpler than dual-monitor KVM chaos, or dealing with audio- or webcam-over-network issues.
(Edit: re-worded from incorrectly saying 1280 × 1440 is 4:3)
It looks like you were using "4:3" to simply mean "closer to square than typical widescreen aspect ratios", which is pretty confusing.
I have found similar. This is why for a cheap portrait monitor I usually recommend older IPS monitors that are available in 1920x1200 or 1600x1200.
Dock and menubar are waste of space for 99% of the time that you're using your computer.
Sometimes the big landscape screen gets used as just that, sometimes as effectively two portrait screens³⁴. The tall one is very nice for reading documents/mail/HN/… and such, though a little thin occasionally⁵ so 16:10 would be nicer. The main Windows taskbar lives on the tall screen⁶. Not an optimal setup when sat down⁷ I find, but as I stand most of the time and it works really well for me like that, limitations when seated isn't a big issue.
[1] I gave up asking and just brought my own in, along with the standing desk I'd been asking about for years
[2] almost the same dot pitch as the other screen, so no need to faf with scaling to get things to look sufficiently similar on them
[3] when doing that I effectively have three tall thin screens - one at 1080x1920 two at 1280x1440 (about 13:16).
[4] in fact the Samsung one supports pretending to be two monitors that way using two inputs, one for each side, though I use the OS-/app-level positioning instead so I can nudge one side wider in some contexts
[5] some web designs assume you have more than 1080 pixels in width if you have more than 1024, in fact some just assume 1280+ full-stop (less a little in case some uses with 1280 have their taskbars on the side). For instance Google's right bar gets ~⅓ cut off for instance when searching for things that make it appear, and a number of online stores lose current basket information (that they put on a column at on the right) unless I scroll or move to the other screen
[6] top here, bottom at home, the difference due to how the monitor stand heights work out and the limits of my work space at home meaning the two screens line up differently in the two locations
[7] it is hard to find a comfortable position where I'm not craning my neck a little or forcing myself to set _too_ straight up
Not sure I agree with that.
The whole reason of switching to 16:9 is because TVs did and it’s cheaper for the manufacturers, AND they can advertise the same (or larger) diagonal for less square inches.
See also:
[1]: https://www.minitool.com/news/how-to-move-windows-11-taskbar...
Thank goodness I have an XPS13 with a 16:10 LCD. Now the fixed horizontal bar makes it feel like a 16:9 again. I tried auto-hiding the task bar but that just made other things behave weirdly.
I have a 39" 4k that I divide like you've described, two full width terminals on either side in pillar box framing my work area.
The 4:3 display is also why I initially considered a Framework laptop, but after exploring their performance and limitations, I'd rather just buy the panel and cyberdeck it for a fifth of the cost.
But now I have a 32” 4k display. The prettier fonts and extra window placement flexibility are nice, and I didn’t really use all the vertical space I had.
Windows 10 definantly does not do this well.
Project page: https://github.com/microsoft/PowerToys
FancyZones docs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/windows/powertoys/fancyzone...
Why does Microsoft not promote this more?
I may not need to use Linux now for a while
On Linux I use i3wm, but I have not yet configured it for my 4k setup.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_field#/media/File:Traqu...
The “cheapest” of these is probably the EV2730Q-BK which is a 1920x1920 monitor and it’s priced around £700/€800 in Europe, it does come with a 10bit LUT and high grade IPS panel but it’s still 1920x1920 and 60hz only at a pretty steep price.
edit: instead of down voting, please tell my why my understanding is wrong.
A premium would be fine (we'd surely be grumbling still), but no availability is sad. I'm 60% sure the 1up arcade kits are so small because they're scaled to the largest 4:3 monitor they can get.
If it really bugs you, basically all scalers (brainbox for the LCD display signal) can handle 75-85Hz, since that was part of the VESA crt spec back then. Many of them will accept a higher frequency signal if you toodle around in your GPU settings a bit.
Can't fix the slow response times, but it still helps a fair bit with making general work feel smoother and snappier.
Then, I was bitter when everything became 1920x1080 and feeling constrained by the limited vertical pixels. However, I am now quite happy with 28 inch 4k (3840x2160) on a desktop, rarely making any window full height nor full width. I even dragged home a second 4k monitor from the office at the start of the COVID WFH era, but never bothered to set it up properly. It just doesn't seem like I need that much screen area.
I still feel constrained by a laptop 14 inch 1920x1080, and my work style changes. I prefer to go back to the desktop for "real" work and mostly use the laptop for more basic communication or browsing when I don't want to stay in the home office.