My intention: to alert other would be buyers on the option and advantages of 16:10 over 16:9. so that those ppl who share my similar profile & preferences, won't have to go through the buy-16:9-then-found-not-useful-then-sell-then-spend-more-$-buy-16:10-at-last cycle, in other words, don't repeat my mistake and burn $ in the process. those samsung etc marketing guys won't tell us these things.

originally posted: http://forum.lowyat.net/index.php?showtopi...&#entry54630054

-----------------------------

just bought Dell u2412m for 799 from garage sale, brand new! wow blows me away!!

guys u might regret taking 16:9 if in future if u plan to use it for more productive things like programming, graphics design, spreadsheets, or documents etc. for these kinds of tasks, 16:10 is clearly much better - the extra 120 pixels in height can let you open 2 pages of A4 in full side-by-side (in Word or in pdf) and you still can read all words clearly. the slightly more $$ paid for these extra pixels is completely worthy.

I have compared and found that: a 22" @16:10 will have a height of 11.66", and a 24" @16:9 is only at 11.77" - means that to me the usefulness of a 22" (16:10) is the same as a 24" (16:9).

if i still can't convince you, just consider this simple fact: if you start by taking 16:9, and then regret it, you can't do anything to increase it to 16:10, other than selling it. but if u take 16:10 first, u can view all 16:9 contents without any problem, just ignore the thin black bars on top and bottom la, what's the big deal?

honestly, i really hate those forces behind the industry (samsung maybe?) to push 16:9 to such prominence now. this ratio is only good for watching movies (that still not considering that a lot of big budget movies are made in 2.35:1, so even 16:9 will still give you black bars!), it is rubbish in all other kinds of usage. if 16:10 remains in mass production, their costs will be as low as those 16:9 now. what a waste!

---------------------------------
no i'm not a purist, neither am i a casual user - i use my computer daily for a living. I have been hunting hard to find monitors that are more for practical and productive use, other than those just good for watching movies. and what i can see in the market are loads of 16:9 in all sizes, with prices getting lower and lower, but just not a single one in 16:10 - well, except a few IPS models from Dell, and Asus, and due to the low production numbers, their prices are so high! I bought Dell u2412m at ~800 even though i don't really need an IPS, because of the limited choices out there. hence my frustation expressed above.

---------------------------------
below is my own research during the process of monitor hunting (H: monitor height):

16:10
====

20" - H = 10.56"
22" - H = 11.66"
24" - H = 12.72"
27" - H = 14.31"

1680 x 1050 : dell 2209, sam 226BW
1920 x 1200 : dell U2410, dell U2412m, Dell 2407WFP-HC
2560 x 1600

-----------------

16:9
===

21.5"- H = 10.56" (not 22" & 10.79" as previously stated)
23"  - H = 11.28"
24"  - H = 11.77"
27"  - H = 13.24"

1920 x 1080 : dell ST2420L, ST2410, s2408w, Viewsonic IPS VX2336S, sam B2230H
2048 x 1152 : sam 2343BWX,
2560 x 1440 : dell U2711,

Thanks for viewing, and welcome any discussion - no offense to anyone. These are just my personal opinion.

16:10 is dead soon after the cheaper 4k is going in the masses

yeah, isn't sad?!

personally i preferred 16:9 as mostly video are in that size, other than that will be a black bar on top and bottom, quite annoy actually~

yeah, isn't sad?!

Strictly speaking, those who complain about the black bars on 16:10 are pointless too, because if you are using your 16:9 monitors to view downloaded movies, quite many of them are made in 2:35:1 format, then you will have black bars too, so how? And seriously, I have been using my 16:10 monitors to watch all sorts of movies of various aspect ratios, and, those black bars have never bothered me at all, because after a few seconds, my eyes got used to them and just focus on the movie itself, never distracted by the bars at all.

so actually I'm using an dell p2213 if I'm not wrong ita using 1680x1050 RES. So no point upgrade to 22inch with 1920x1080 RES then?

16:10 is not coming back into the mainstream 1080 monitors because 16:9 shares the same aspect ratio as HD tvs and is cheaper due to economy of scale. 16:10 has a chance with 4k standards but I doubt I'm going to get a 4k monitor even if I could afford it, its going to be too big.

4K is now labelled as 3840x2160 (1080 x 2 = 2160) so it's still 16:9.
16:10 probably only available for professional IPS panel for the high-end, guess consumer who's looking for value monitor with 16:10 will just need to swallow their breath for now (holding for future possibility is not healthy ).
I was looking for 16:10 as well, but the price point still a deal breaker...  sigh~

A 16:9 22" (or 21.5") led monitor only has the vertical height of a 17" 4:3 crt monitor. So for someone who was used to the 21" crt monitor, its going to take a 24" 16:10 led monitor or 26" 16:9 led monitor to have the same vertical height.

To add my points of the strengths of 16:10, I will show the following photos. The conclusion is that 16:9 sucks at productivity, it is perhaps only best for entertainment like movies and games. Whereas 16:10 and older formats like 5:4 are better for doing serious work. When you are working on documents, you would enjoy more on any mon that is taller than shorter, trust me. In addition also, the 16:10 format is so close to 16:9 making it quite fine to watch movies, and with added height making document-viewing a joy too, it is a winner is I only have $ for just one mon.

I just hope that the industry will produce more monitors in the formats that are good for work, and, at the same time, continue to made monitors for play. They all have their own demands!

Photo 1: (16:10, 24")
See how the monitor can open two facing pages of document in FULL size!
Photo 2: (16:10, 24")
The same mon as in 1, see the height of it even longer than the actual A4 size paper!

Photo 3: (16:10, 22")
This size has the exact height of the A4 paper. Still quite acceptable.

Photo 4: (16:9, 22")
See how much the monitor is shorter than the height of the A4 paper. I have put this mon aside just as a spare for quite some time already. Almost useless.

Yes its more than likely that computer monitors will keep following hd tv standards at 4k/8k instead of 16:10 whxga.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_size
A 16:9 22" (or 21.5") led monitor only has the vertical height of a 17" 4:3 crt monitor. So for someone who was used to the 21" crt monitor, its going to take a 24" 16:10 led monitor or 26" 16:9 led monitor to have the same vertical height.

looks like i am going 2 hold on 2 my old samsung T240 4 another 8 years then possibly the last 16:10 ever by samsung

yeah, agreed. mons with 16:9 ratio will have to be at least 26" to match the height of a 16:10 24" mon, and the price would be too high for average users. 

Actually manufacturers can go ahead to make 29" or larger mons for all I care, but they would be useless for work if the vertical reso is only limited at 1080 - it is too short to be productive - what a waste! From two years ago, my minimum requirement for a new mon is that its height must be at least same or more than the height of an A4 paper - 11.66".

either 4:3 5:4 or 16:10 are for professionals & enthusiasts
16:9 is for n00bs