1byte wrote:Why 16:10? The professional film world all use 4k and better monitors, but they are all 1.78:1. Of course, the needs of the industry are met as they are working on the aspect ratio that will be displayed to the end user. The only thing 16:10 would get you is the ability to display older European films in their native aspect ratio of 1.66.
Now, I'm all for manufacturers making whatever hardware you want, I am just curious to your needs? Its an interesting topic.
Simple, because I use my PC for an awful lot more than watching films. In fact if I want to watch a film, I'd rather watch it on the big TV in the living room (I have a Raspberry PI set up for video streaming to the TV). And if I do watch any TV/film on my PC, a tiny black bar at the top and bottom is really not an issue. In fact if you're editing TV/films, 16:10 is useful as you can see the content and see the editing controls above/below at the same time.
As it is, on my PC I browse the web a lot (extra screen height is useful), work on documents/spreadsheets (extra screen height is useful), do programming (extra screen height is useful), etc.
My main beef with 16:9 is that it's generally a downgrade from 16:10 (monitors went from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 for example, and you get less screen space compared to a 16:10 screen of the same diagonal size). It wasn't done because 16:9 is technically better in any way, it was done simply because it's the same aspect ratio as a TV and therefore the panels are cheaper to make - and I like a good monitor designed for working, not a cheap one designed for watching TV on.
Systems in use:
: R10000 195MHz CPU, 384MB RAM, SolidIMPACT Graphics, 36GB 15k HDD & 300GB 10k HDD, 100Mb/s NIC, New/quiet fans, IRIX 6.5.22
: R14000 600MHz CPU, 4GB RAM, V10 Graphics, 72GB 15k HDD & 300GB 10k HDD, 1Gb/s NIC, New/quiet fans, IRIX 6.5.30
Other system in storage:
R5000 200MHz, 224MB RAM, 72GB 15k HDD, PSU fan mod, IRIX 6.5.30