Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site April 23, 2014, 03:06:53 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Your Support Funds this Site: View the Supporter Yearbook.
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: Can we stop with the diagonal screen length thing?  (Read 5179 times)
AndyM
Charter Member
***
Posts: 615


see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #50 on: January 11, 2011, 08:11:35 AM »

> save around 10% on production costs

That makes sense.  I guess the part I don't understand is the market not insisting on the vertical height.  The 1920 x 1200 display is absolutely the best for me, but if I couldn't use it, my old 1600 x 1200 would be my next choice, not 1920 x 1080.

But my Control key is still to the left of the "a" key, my Alt key is at the lower left, and almost every tv show I like get's canceled quickly.  So it shouldn't surprise me that what works for me probably won't be indicative of market preferences.
Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #51 on: January 11, 2011, 08:44:08 AM »

While I do appreciate monitors have become wider, since IDEs these days are very screen real-estate hungry, I do believe it's a shame it means limiting the vertical resolution. I can live with 1080 pixels, but more definitely wouldn't hurt!

Production costs is probably the main factor, but the form factor is probably also important in and by itself - 16:9 is the standard for HD content, and the manufacturers are probably afraid of going with something else, especially as we see TVs and computer monitors converge.
Logged

- carpe noctem
AndyM
Charter Member
***
Posts: 615


see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #52 on: January 11, 2011, 09:13:06 AM »

I can't argue with any of this, but I don't have to like it!
Logged
JavaJones
Review 2.0 Designer
Charter Member
***
Posts: 2,514



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #53 on: January 11, 2011, 02:39:17 PM »

I don't know that the manufacturer's are "afraid" of going with other than 16:9, I think they have good reason to stick to it (several of the reasons already posited in this thread). I think the vast majority of the display market consists of people not well informed (or even particularly concerned) enough to demand something other than 16:9, and in fact many consumers may like that aspect ratio because it's familiar from TVs. While there is a vocal minority like us who wants more height, the overall market doesn't care, and may even prefer widescreen (even if the reason for that preference is not well founded). So there is little or no incentive for manufacturers do to other than 16:9 displays.

- Oshyan
Logged

The New Adventures of Oshyan Greene - A life in pictures...
Pages: Prev 1 2 [3]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.033s | Server load: 0.12 ]