4k resolution coming

[DuckThor Evil]

Anyway, we really cant see sharply anything outside of 40-60 degree and this is the important thing - this area is closer to 4:3:

Well I for one prefer to have peripheral vision too even if it's blurry. I think it's pretty important thing. It also makes monitors feel much more immersive in gaming and moving the eyes or head is not hard.

 

[Davros]

Bull.... Our peripheral is > 180degree vertically.

You know your claiming we can see behind ourselves

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Web pages are vertical since the 90s.

Why do web pages have to fit the screen (or rather, why does the screen have to fit web pages)? Web pages scale to fit, or are locked to a 1024 width often enough, and can be windowed. Look - I've just resized this web page to be portrait. Same text, same content, it fits. Now I stretch it wide. Woo. The choice is mine regardless of monitor aspect. What widescreen gives is space in the horizontal to multitask, whether that's other applications like a Twitter feed and chat client, or panels within a complex application. Portrait would see you have to place those above/below your main content instead of to the sides, which is a less natural position and is an inferior ergonomic for vertically based content like lists, chat history, tables, document overviews, etc. Even portrait monitors for journalism are a bit daft. Take a monitor with the same vertical FOV and resolution of the portrait monitor and make it 16:9 widescreen - you've now added space either side of the main document view for all your tools and other stuff. You have exactly the same document view, an entire page, but with the difference of placing other tools on screen in easy access. The portrait monitor gains nothing other than a cleaner looking page nicely framed by the monitor.

 

[wco81]

16:9 was chosen by the CE industry as a compromise because movies come in wider and narrower aspect ratios.

So these display makers are choosing 16:9 because presumably people view videos on their monitors.

 

[rcf]

Relative to horizontal size, true - narrower aspects afford more room top and bottom. But unless desk space is a problem, overall there's little advantage to any aspect. In some content that's not full screen, one or other aspect will have a shortcoming.

Who uses a browser in full screen? The browser is typically, as fas as I can see, run as a window with other stuff down the sides. And that's something widescreen grants, and why super widescreens are still valuable. You can open multiple portrait documents side by side. A massively portrait screen could open multiple documents one on top of the other, but it's hard to view up/down than left/right, so I think widescreen wins the ergonomics argument. In complex apps with lots of tool panels, widescreen lets you run them down the sides, perfect for lists.

I don't see any real benefit to narrower aspects, excepting the first case. At the end of the day, aspect doesn't really matter when content is windowed, leaving full screen content as the deciding factor for best fit aspect, and that's chiefly movies and games.

What you've said is fair enough, it's all about compromises. Widescreens are better for multitasking as we can have 3 windows side by side, but such monitors have to be bigger than the equivalent 4:3 monitor (that can still display 2 windows side by side).
And if we change from bigger desktop monitors to notebooks then your widescreen isn't big enough to have 2 or 3 windows open since they would be too small. So you're forced to have just one window open and now suddenly the widescreen is worse than the 4:3 screen due to lack of vertical space.
When I mentioned "portrait mode" I meant just rotating the screen by 90 degrees and using it fullscreen or with a single window to browse the web, read PDFs, code, etc. Stacking windows one over the other in portrait mode would be weird.

Why do web pages have to fit the screen (or rather, why does the screen have to fit web pages)? Web pages scale to fit, or are locked to a 1024 width often enough, and can be windowed. Look - I've just resized this web page to be portrait. Same text, same content, it fits. Now I stretch it wide. Woo. The choice is mine regardless of monitor aspect. What widescreen gives is space in the horizontal to multitask, whether that's other applications like a Twitter feed and chat client, or panels within a complex application. Portrait would see you have to place those above/below your main content instead of to the sides, which is a less natural position and is an inferior ergonomic for vertically based content like lists, chat history, tables, document overviews, etc.

I guess I'm old-fashioned since I prefer one window if possible (and use the taskbar to multitask). But a 21" 4:3 monitor is nice and still has enough space for 2 windows, while a 21" widescreen monitor feels small due to less real estate.

Even portrait monitors for journalism are a bit daft. Take a monitor with the same vertical FOV and resolution of the portrait monitor and make it 16:9 widescreen - you've now added space either side of the main document view for all your tools and other stuff. You have exactly the same document view, an entire page, but with the difference of placing other tools on screen in easy access. The portrait monitor gains nothing other than a cleaner looking page nicely framed by the monitor.

Sure, and the widescreen monitor takes 3x more space on your desk.

 

[Blazkowicz]

A 3:2 does exist, but only on one specific laptop, Chromebook with 2560x1700 display.

 

[Xmas]

You know your claiming we can see behind ourselves

More like sideways, but it's true. At least for young people the typical horizontal FOV is >180°, though it narrows with age.

Even portrait monitors for journalism are a bit daft. Take a monitor with the same vertical FOV and resolution of the portrait monitor and make it 16:9 widescreen - you've now added space either side of the main document view for all your tools and other stuff. You have exactly the same document view, an entire page, but with the difference of placing other tools on screen in easy access. The portrait monitor gains nothing other than a cleaner looking page nicely framed by the monitor.

That's basically just saying that a larger screen is better.

At home I'm using a 20" 16:10 monitor in portrait orientation for web browsing and document reading (next to a 23" 16:9 monitor for everything else). I like the height, and for an equivalent height I'd need a 32" monitor (16:10). Not that such a monitor wouldn't be nice, but that size with similar pixel density doesn't come cheap and brings some other drawbacks.

 

[Davros]

More like sideways, but it's true. At least for young people the typical horizontal FOV is >180°, though it narrows with age.

Npl said vertical
ps: Do those people have transparent heads ?

 

[Npl]

Npl said vertical

degree is degree, atleast thats what the guy that sold me a phd told me.
But yeah, shouldda been horizontal

 

[HTupolev]

ps: Do those people have transparent heads ?

Why would you need a transparent head? For the typical person, the lens of the eye is sitting way out in front of where the sides of the face could obstruct it when looking forward. Obviously the nose bridge restricts the inward-facing capabilities of an eye, but that issue is completely dealt with by having an eye on each side of the nose.

 

[Davros]

I was referring to the vertical

 

[UniversalTruth]

http://www.auo.com/?sn=107&lang=en-US&c=9&n=1589

 

[UniversalTruth]

Oh, they are coming.

Toshiba reveals specs of its 4k ultra-HD laptop

Toshiba Satellite P50t

15.6-inch 10-point multi-touch screen at 3840×2160 resolution;
Haswell i7;
1600 MHz DDR3L (16GB max);
AMD Radeon R7 M265X;
1 TB HDD;
BDXL-compatible Blu-ray optical drive;

More on the topic:

Toshiba Unveils New 4K Ultra HD Laptop

http://www.techpowerup.com/199888/toshiba-unveils-new-4k-ultra-hd-laptop.html

Perhaps the best now it just to be patient. In a year or two those should flood and dominate the market, no?

 

[Wynix]

That is actually pretty nice.
The build quality looks first rate, the price is much lower than i was expecting.
The specs are good for the price and the only weak point is the GPU, although even that isn't awful.

Toshiba have a very solid 4K laptop.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Perhaps the best now it just to be patient. In a year or two those should flood and dominate the market, no?

You think they are going to be $500 in a year or two?

 

[RedVi]

That is actually pretty nice.
The build quality looks first rate, the price is much lower than i was expecting.
The specs are good for the price and the only weak point is the GPU, although even that isn't awful.

Toshiba have a very solid 4K laptop.

And no SSD. To me that makes all the difference...

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Linus seems to be liking that LG 21:9 monitor.

Maybe next year I'll be looking at something like this, but for now I bought Dell U2713HM, got it for about 450€.

 

[Wynix]

Linus seems to be liking that LG 21:9 monitor.



Maybe next year I'll be looking at something like this, but for now I bought Dell U2713HM, got it for about 450€.

Just wait for the 21:9 with PPI similar to 4K, perhaps 6880 x 2880?

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Just wait for the 21:9 with PPI similar to 4K, perhaps 6880 x 2880?

4K variant would be something like 5160 x 2160, I doubt you'll see higher than that anytime soon.

 

[UniversalTruth]

I don't like this review. They could have done it better. Dislike from me.

You think they are going to be $500 in a year or two?

I was speaking about laptops and that price range is for the most disgusting, cheapest shit over there. When did I say that I will buy a laptop for 500$?