Amalion wrote:Edmond, consider being less rude and angry in your responses.
Wanting a taller screen is extremely rational if you want to enjoy any content produced in 4:3, which includes the majority of the best television and the greatest video games ever created. A 16:10 monitor allows 4:3 content to display larger (16:12 would be ideal to balance historical and modern needs in one screen). A 16:9 monitor has no advantages.
A perfectly square monitor is not better for this, because that would limit the display of the 4:3 content from the other direction. (Yes, I know about non-square pixels, that's irrelevant because the content was produced taking that stretch into account.)
Okok, i sincerely apologize for being an angry little shit. Guess my genitals are incredibly small or something.
Anyway, i doubt we will see 16:10s in the future. But considering 4^2:3^2 = 16:9, and 4^3:3^3 = 64:27, id say a 4:3 monitor is more likely, just because it would scale into the resolutions nicely, like 3840x2880, which scales nicely into the 5k res, which seems to be the heroic tier over 4k, just like 1440p was over 1080p. Also, if big companies release those, they need to be sure people will get to watch their 4k content on it pixel perfectly.
flood wrote:everyone here is sick of your QQing about how other people could prefer anything other than ultrawide displays
Thats not really true. You just think that because i tried to explain to you whats the deal with 64:27. You refused to understand, no matter how i tried.
Either way I spoke for myself. You speak for everyone. I dont think thats comparable, and not very honorable from you, tbh.
Yes, but it sounds so much more modern and cutting edge if people aren't paying attention!