No, cannot say like that, will hurt many people with low budget.

Well, a 2560x1440 16:9 display should be good enough.

i dont mind 16-9 or 16-10 screen as long pixel density is tight.
facepalm at 1366x768 laptops


n00b spotted!! haha joking

yes i agree. 16:10 should be the standard for computers.

HDTV spoil the lcd standard for PC. 16:9 wasnt vesa standard for PC.

16:9 ratio give lcd manufacture more panels to cut in production line, so they can sell more. That is why we see more 16:9 monitor than 16:10.

As for those who said 16:10 isnt suitable for gaming and movies, that is incorrect. As long as the pixel is 1:1, no streching involved.

It's only that 16:10 monitor are more towards professional rather than entertainment. Therefore the panels come with it is more on quality rather than speed.

Still waiting 24/27" 16:10 monitor with ips+120hz. This is great for gaming. Now still don't have.

yeah u r right. the manufacturers were bought by the entertainment industries and produced all these 16:9 mons that are useless for work.

i have purchased "outdated" used 5:4 (the 1280x1024) monitors and found them to use so very suitable for work, that I practically put aside my 21.5" samsung 16:9 units, and do most of my productive work on it. can u imagine that?

now i own two 24" 16:10 (one at home, one at work), i can lay all these useless units at rest forever already...

but see, in the whole process, i have wasted so much $ on not ideal monitors, and finally save enough $ to buy the more costly 16:10, if i was given the choice in the beginning, much precious $$ would be saved. That's why i write all these so that ppl won't repeat my mistake.

This post has been edited by chopin: Sep 19 2012, 08:27 PM

i wish 16:10 ratio monitors were cheap

i wanted that ratio but due to budget constraints i had to get a 16:9 ratio

but so far 16:9 still okay for me

i been brought up with 16:10 environment ratio since 22inch till now i still have to prefer 16:10 ratio with my u2410 and u2414m...is kinda weird when i see those monitor with 16:9 although i am using it right now...and i do feel that the workplace is quite limited as in those height pixel is lesser by 120...

the only reason is because they focus all their production lines to 16:9 unit, otherwise, here is no reason why 16:10 sell at so high prices.

if 16:9 is good for you, then good. but in the future, if you need a better/bigger screen, should seriously consider 16:10.

---

Added on September 21, 2012, 1:30 pmyeah, we can put a 16:9 and a 16:10 side by side, both 24" units, and immediately can see the advantage of the latter.

This post has been edited by chopin: Sep 21 2012, 01:30 PM

so what's the best value 24" 16:10 monitor apart from U2412M ?

hmm, most 24" 16:10 mons are IPS nowadays, i don't see any cheaper ones than Dell's at ~800+. If anyone knows any cheaper thing, please post it here... :-)

haha i got no problem with 16:9 27 inch monitor but i got big problem with 16:9 23 inch monitor...my own 24 inch 16:10 monitor is still 4 the win

so? even if you force 16:10 in most games you will end up getting black bars. whats the point. better stick with 16:9 as its more universal.

what's the point? let's see:

1. 16:9 very suitable for games + movies; for work - not ideal.
2. 16:10 games + movies - no problem, only have "extra" black bars; for work - wow!!! (or just refer to TS's very detailed explanation in the opening post)

now why should i take (1) and not (2)? unless, of course, i only use it for games + movies.

still don't get it? a 5-seater saloon can take 4 ppl, but a 4-seater car can't get 5 ppl.

Pretty much agreed with the what TS had pointed out on the first post. I'm using U2412M myself and I've never regretted a bit, even though it costs way more than U2312...

And I find it funny when people justify 16:9 is better because 16:10 has black bars when watching 1080p format. I mean, is it really that much of a let-down to stop people from buying it? Also, most games nowadays DOES support 16:10 by default and NOT forcing the resolution out. Just saying.

But of course, everyone will have their own preferences and I won't deny it.

This post has been edited by polarzbearz: Sep 25 2012, 08:46 PM

...and thats why i said earlier that most, i repeat, most of 16:9 users are n00b. their daily routine only stuck at game, 1080p movie, game, 1080p movie and game and 1080p movie. they are paranoid with the so-called horizontal "black bar"

no offence. cheers.

i goddamn hate notebook 14" screen

we have one now here

Must boycott 16:9 standards (LOL), must make 16:10 for PC standard!!
Well, my next target is just bigger resolution, pretty much all, something like the 27", 30" is way out of my league.
Sigh, too bad the 27" is already using 16:9 standard, what a sad thing, and now they even coming out with 29" with 21:9 (2560x1080)... WTF???

Well we don't oppose 16:9 or 21:9.

Actually it is a good thing to have more choices for consumers, so 21:9 is good for ppl who want to watch lots of movies, and perhaps, gaming the whole day. what is sad is that, they make too many models that are obviously entertainment-oriented, and leave the rest of us who are using the monitor more for work with very little choices. in so doing, for example, to find a 24" in 16:10, the cheapest model is perhaps Dell U2412M with a high price tag of rm899, whereas the 16:9 Dell 2312 is only at 599 - the difference is just too big isn't it? this would be totally avoidable if they make more production of 16:10 units and models.

i think those of us who use 16:10 wouldn't give a damn if we can have more choices in models and the prices are lower than the present ones, then by all means, go ahead and make 16:9, 21:9, and hack even 99:9, we don't give a damn, as long as we can have reasonably priced 16:10 and 5:4 to buy. Really, we wouldn't give a DAMN!

Majority of people using 16:9 monitors are actually people who connect their consoles to it (PS3/360).
Because both consoles do not have an aspect ratio scaler, that means playing them on a 16:10 monitor would make the monitor look stretched out.

While there is 1:1 pixel mapping on many 16:10 monitors, doing so would make games run in such a small window that it would detract the experience from a full screen play. This is because most PS3 games do not have 1080p upscaling support.

And yes, there are plenty of people who plays their PS3 and 360 on a monitor due to either having no space for a TV or a budget.

So IMO, 16:9 really isn't that bad to be quite honest. But yes, 16:10 monitors should make a come back into the mainstream market, no doubt about that.