Hmmm... I smell Windows scaling 🙁 However, fo the avid Linux users this could be quite nice. Multiple terminals and VM's open does seem like a viable option now at 3440x1440.

All computer screens should be 16:10 and all TVs should be 2.35:1, period. I can understand one oddball or two, but not half screens on market. With 4k tv and TVs incoming we could choose buy TV screen or buy computer screen, so no problems for greedy companies claiming manufacturing costs. All other formats should go.

Hmmm... I smell Windows scaling 🙁 However, fo the avid Linux users this could be quite nice. Multiple terminals and VM's open does seem like a viable option now at 3440x1440.

There's no problem of scaling, as basically you are tied to the 1440p in height. so its like having 2 monitors side by side, but on one. ( i admit 2 monitors with a strange 1720x1440 resolution ) The problem of scaling is not really in windows anyway, but on specific appliccations software who have still not integrate the notion of resolution higher of 2560x1600... with all the desktop monitor and laptop released this year with "UHD" resolution, i tend to hope they will remedy to this quickly.

All computer screens should be 16:10 and all TVs should be 2.35:1, period. I can understand one oddball or two, but not half screens on market. With 4k tv and TVs incoming we could choose buy TV screen or buy computer screen, so no problems for greedy companies claiming manufacturing costs. All other formats should go.

No thank you. I want proper widescreen on my PC because I play games and watch movies.

No thank you. I want proper widescreen on my PC because I play games and watch movies.

And you get all of it with 2.35:1 screen. True wide screen for movies without borderlines and for games too. My point was that we now have 4:3 for old hackers, 16:10 for professionals, 16:9 for victims of the trend, 2.35:1 for true movie video. Instead we should have 16:10 for all laptops and computers + 2.35:1 option for players/movie fans, and 2.35:1 for TV. That would make only two separate video formats, so it would benefit greatly to consumers and manufacturers in terms of final production and selling cost. And you would have an option to buy 2.35:1 screen or 2.35:1 TV with 800Hz refresh rate... Same panels, different electronics.

And you get all of it with 2.35:1 screen. True wide screen for movies without borderlines and for games too. My point was that we now have 4:3 for old hackers, 16:10 for professionals, 16:9 for victims of the trend, 2.35:1 for true movie video. Instead we should have 16:10 for all laptops and computers + 2.35:1 option for players/movie fans, and 2.35:1 for TV. That would make only two separate video formats, so it would benefit greatly to consumers and manufacturers in terms of final production and selling cost. And you would have an option to buy 2.35:1 screen or 2.35:1 TV with 800Hz refresh rate... Same panels, different electronics.

You need to remember the aspect ratio of a film is determined by the director of photography. The recent die hard movie was 1.78:1, for example. Some DoP's choose 2.33:1 so there is not always the 'perfect' aspect ratio for home cinema, but since teevee broadcast standards are 1.78:1, you gotta factor that in. If you really want the best cinema reproduction, then get a 2.33:1 projector and make do with whatever you want for desktop/couch viewings and usage.

Ar09, I dont say, you are wrong or right, but the notion of 16/10 is allready something from the past, the only one now, who are used on professional monitor is the 30" 2560x1600.. its nearly impossible to find any 1900x1200 or 1600x900 monitor ( even for professional use ).. The point is because, if you want higher height, you dont take any more a 1900x1200 monitor resolutions, but you will buy a 2560x1440 resolution ( and you will win on size on the largest ) .. or if you want a 16:10 1600x900 resolution screen, you can have the same height with a 1080p monitor for waaay cheaper. ( and with 300lanes on the large size in more ) Even on professional use, we have not seeing this like a bad thing.. we had allways find something who was fit our needs ( and i speak about CAD design users )... we was just choose the higher resolution and size. Now if you want the full 16/10 higher resolution, you need the 30" 2560x1600, but 27" 2560x1440 are too cheaper and offer, nearly the same space of work. But personally, i dont know many professional who use their monitor in a professional way ( editing photos, 3D enginnering etc who dont have a 27" at minimum or 30", in reality in general we use 2-3x 27" or 30" displays as working space). I really think, the notion of 16:10 monitors was drained by the price at this time. peoples was suddenly see 16/9 arrive, and say, i have a 1900x1200 24", why do i want a 1900x1080p .. and loose on height ? .. buy a 27" with 1440p.. you think you loose in height? you even win on every point .. When i see peoples telling me, they can find a 24" 16/10 and 1080p is too small in height, i just tell them to buy a 27" WQHD or a 30" if they really want a 16/10 monitor.

I like this, but only in this size. Anything else is would be too small. It is roughly equivalent in terms of vertical screen space to a 27inch 16x9.

I'm currently considering if I'll go 1440p 16:9 or 1440p 21:9. The latter would be awesome, but I don't see my cards pushing THAT many pixels at acceptable framerates. 16:9 should be good to go, the system can handle 2560x1600 downsampled to 1600x1200 (my current monitor) quite well, so 2560x1440 should be no issue.

Ar09, I dont say, you are wrong or right, but the notion of 16/10 is allready something from the past, the only one now, who are used on professional monitor is the 30" 2560x1600.. its nearly impossible to find any 1900x1200 or 1600x900 monitor ( even for professional use )..

Dell make and supply several 16:10 monitors (1200P), and Google found about 19,500,000 results in 0.38 seconds. Far from impossible. http://www.cclonline.com/category/901/Monitors/attributeslist/1041004/ The above link is an etailer listing 55 models which have 16:10/8.5:1 ratios - they range in price from £100 to £1,300. If you wanted to talk about televisions, then you'd be right, but the ONLY reason 1.78:1 ratios exist for desktops is due to the television standard and the extremely cheap and easy availability of 1.78:1 ratio LCD panels that monitor producer can purchase and supply/palm off as monitors. What I'm getting at is a lot of the panels being produced were produced to feed market demand for 1.78:1 ratio television broadcast standards. Now, as anyone can buy these panels in bulk and then throw them down a production line, add some bezels and interfaces with RTOS's, box them up - they can make them for televisions markets or for desktop markets. Now, I'm happy for someone to offer citations, but my recollection is the dominant aspect ratio went from 4:3 to 8.5:1 to 1.78:1, and I believe this is the reason why. 8.5:1 is a better aspect ratio for computer usage, that's just my belief. 1.78:1 just seems to 'cheapen' computing.