Is 16:10 dead?

Personally if people are going to give in to 16:9 or spend ridiculous amounts on a 16:10 nothings going to change and they will turn 16:10 a specialist screen. My monitor is on its last legs, flashing for 10 minutes before it works (2232bw Pebble) but I refuse to pay those prices on monitors that have the same tech and when I bought mine 4-5years ago, it takes the ****!

ISP monitors have a big response time and a bigger price tag, why bother. Saitek eclipse II gone, now this 16:9 BS :( lol
 
Last edited:
0neAnd0nly said:
Personally if people are going to give in to 16:9 or spend ridiculous amounts on a 16:10 nothings going to change and they will turn 16:10 a specialist screen. My monitor is on its last legs, flashing for 10 minutes before it works (2232bw Pebble) but I refuse to pay those prices on monitors that have the same tech and when I bought mine 4-5years ago, it takes the ****!

ISP monitors have a big response time and a bigger price tag, why bother. Saitek eclipse II gone, now this 16:9 BS :( lol
Click to expand...

From what I've read the U2410's response time is alright for gaming. Not the fastest monitor ever, but fast enough.

I might stop procrastinating and actually buy one this week!
 
Never realised 16:10 was so out of favour, as it were. I'm glad my Samsung T240 is still going strong (famous last words ;)), as I find 16:9 just a bit 'wrong' for Windows use.
 
0neAnd0nly said:
Its a lot of money for what it is ?
Click to expand...

image quality is SO much nicer on IPS panels. Although you dont notice it unless its something you care about, or have an IPS and a TN next to each other. I didnt realise how much worse my asus 22" TN was until I set it up as second monitor next to my Hazro IPS and there is a HUGE difference in colors and blacks.
 
oh for that, I cant comment for that res. Your not paying that much more just for the pixels, your paying because its an IPS panel and not a TN one (they are different techs). IPS has slower response times but images are better, so its used for professional monitors for use by people who work with Photoshop etc.

I have a personal 17" laptop that is 16:10 and a work 15" laptop which is 16:9. I dislike using the 16:9 one as it is simply so short, My 30" could probably be a little shorter without affecting my work ability, but I would certainly notice the difference, its nice having it and I need as much space as possible, really want to add another 28 or 30" or something, but cant afford it after just moving back to the country and starting up as a consultant :/

edit: @ 1920 you would notice it, as *1200 you can fit two a4 pages next to each other in full size without scrolling, you cant on a 1080 screen. for non work uses though, its all a bit meh. I think 16:9 screens below a certain size look oddly thin though.
 
Last edited:
Probably because 16:9 is better for consoles and companies know that a lot of console gamers use monitors instead of TV's. I guess they think more money is to be made from console owners rather than pc gamers.
 
Soylent Red said:
Brilliant monitor. Is yours still going strong? Mine is dying slowly :(
Click to expand...
Yep, still going very well, had it for almost 4 years now, so it's out of warranty, tbh id be hard pressed to find a comparable replacement for it theese days, id like a 120hz panel for gaming, however theese are all TN panels which usually have poor viewing angles, as i use my lcd for blu rays good viewing angles are essential.
 
Ok I have 2 monitors both similar and very different

Firstly I wouldn't want a 24 16:9 or more importantly a 1920x 1080 web pages are just 2 short
So for 24 is only have 16:10 and the u 2410 I have for that is ideal size:resolution combination, its only drawback is films bigger black bars so less picture size than a 24 16:9

But I also have a u 2711 I wouldst have got this if it was 1920x1080, but being 2560x1440 I actually gain screen space, its also about the same height as the 2410 but in width and therefore watching films its a lot bigger, quite noticeable, so this screen at 16:9 ticks all the boxes, its got the res to pull off 16:9 in regards to vertical web page viewing, and the width to watch films nicely

Now I've toyed with the idea of 3 u2410 for eyefinity but glad I didnt, the bezel would annoy me, films would be significantly (this would bug me most ) and to tell the truth the 2711 fills my field of visuon.. with 3 24s I'd have to sit further back and then the monitors would be too short, I really feel eyefinity is a lot worse than a big wide screen high res monitor
 
16:9 is the obvious choice. 1920*1200 is so ridicolous expensive that you get two U2311H for the same price as one U2410. Only fools buy 1920*1200 today. If you want higher resolution you obviously buy 2560*1440.
 
Well I bought a samsung 2443bw 1920x1200 for £200 last week and very happy with it as I now have 3 of them set to eyefinity and wad not expensive at all and yes there TFT but I think ips are better I just can not justify the price rag for what u get.

For a good ips £450 mine £200 for the same size and res but £250 cheaper, ips is not worth more than another whole monitor extra and a £50 saving. Ops is way over priced should be mo more than £100 for that extra quality ips picture.

These companys are laughing and rubbing there hands, I think the reason ips monitors are so high in price is because pros business use them and pay the price for them and poor working people have to pay them prices as well.
 
Last edited:
Dell 3007WFP here. I absolutely adore it's 2560x1600 16:10 resolution. But at that size I wouldn't object to 16:9 instead, especially as it would reduce the price a lot. But for 24" and below I'd prefer the screen estate of 16:10.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom