So, why was there ever a 5:4 resolution? I don't see the point.

That attitude is why we're stuck with the cancerous 16:9 standard.

>>45362583

I'm a bit of a newfag to /g/, so why is 16:9 bad?

And what possible advantage is there to 5:4 over 4:3? It's practically the same.

>>45362583
>that attitude is why we're blessed with the based 16:9 standard.
fixed, 16:9 is goat for all home uses

I always thought it was silly myself. It's not a bad ratio, but it's close enough to 4:3 that it just wasn't worth having an oddball ratio.

Nowadays there are many standards, but back when 1280x1024 was created it was pretty much the only non-4:3 resolution in use.

Personally, I just wish everything had remained 4:3. I'm a huge 4:3 fan and it was nice having a single standard.

>>45362620
Full-screen movies. That's about it. You need horizontal space.

>>45362620
16:10 master race checking in

>>45362651
Or would that be vertical? Either way, 8:5 mustard race.

>>45362623

Well, I certainly never had any problems with 4:3. I've ended up with a 16:10 monitor and it's been endless troubles with older games due to lack of widescreen support and because even 16:9 resolutions end up distorted whereas 4:3 resolutions are all kinds of funky. If my toaster can't run games at 1280x800 or 1440x900, I just have to deal with a distorted display.

>>45362653
>>45362669
16:10 is nice for computing, but 16:9 is more popular for a reason.

>>45362695
Yeah, because that's what the companies make.

>>45362695

To run 120-degree FOV in FPS?

16:10 or 8:5 is the right amount of area we can use because that how our eyes work. I don't think there are any falcons among us monkeys.

I have a 1080p because pleb

>tfw im the only person with a 1440x900 19" monitor

Although i like having the extra height for text reading.2

>>45362695
Windows has like 90% market share, your argument is irrelevant.

>>45362730

I also have a 1440 x 900. See >>45362690.

I have a 1280x1024 monitor. shit's nice for browsing.

>>45362583

How is 16:9 cancerous?

>>45362983
It's sort of common knowledge. What, do you play games on pirated Windows 7?

>>45362730
I've got 2 old 1440x900 19" monitors that m using right now
I'm to poor to upgrade

>>45363059

I play on a legal copy of Win 7. I have never heard of 16:9 being bad, only that 16:10 is better.

>>45363110
At 1080p it doesn't really matter as much, but 1280x800 vs 1366x768. Also quit playing games.

>tfw only use computer for watching animu
>tfw 16:9 screens for everything
feels good

>>45362742
Either that or perfectly relevant

>>45363059
>It's sort of common knowledge
>He has no actual reasons, he's just a hipster

>>45362651

It isn't good for full screen movies either, there is 21:9 for that.

>>45363182

Wish I had a 1080p monitor, but I can't play games at that resolution anyway. And why would you compare anything to 1366x768? Shouldn't you compare 1280x800 to 1280x720?

>Also quit playing games.

Why? I like games.

16:9 makes no sense, tbh. It is only good for movies.

I am legitimately retarded. What is the difference between 4:3 and 5:4?

>>45363300
the aspect ratio. 5:4 is more square than 4:3

>>45362542
I love my 1280x1024 screen

>>45363300

It's the ratio of width to height. 1280x960 versus 1280x1024.

>>45363270
Back in the day when you bought a cheap laptop it was 1280x800. Now it's 1366x768.

>Why? I like games.
That is why /g/ has become shit.

File: 40.gif (29KB, 840x372px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 840x372px

>>45363300
here's a nice chart for reference

>>45363367

>Back in the day when you bought a cheap laptop it was 1280x800. Now it's 1366x768.

I didn't know that. I knew 1366x768 was a laptop resolution, though. Why would they downgrade to an inferior, oddball resolution that nothing else uses?

>That is why /g/ has become shit.

I don't see how, not that it much matters to me. I came here to ask a question about aspect ratios and I probably won't come back.

>>45363451
>I don't see how, not that it much matters to me. I came here to ask a question about aspect ratios and I probably won't come back.
Precisely.

>>45363472

>Precisely.

I don't follow. How does that make /g/ bad? Or do you just not like that people come to the tech board with tech questions?

>>45363493
He is saying /g/ is turning into mostly gamers who only come here for tech support. If that is the trend, don't expect help from people who know what they are talking about.

>>45363373
>>45363365
>>45363326
I see, thanks.

>>45363510

If they're just coming here for tech support (which even I read /g/ is not for), why would they stick around and shit up the board?

I won't try to deny that people coming from /v/ will ruin any board, though.

>>45363539
Why would anyone stick around? This is a thinly veiled tech support thread. You came here to ask a question you could have researched yourself with libraries of already existing information.

But I'm not even that guy, nor do I myself visit this board very often. You got your answer and /g/ will for the moment live another day.

I've had a 5:4 monitor for the past five years, it's definitely better for anything to do with text. The only annoyance is the extreme letterboxing on movies.

>>45363613

>This is a thinly veiled tech support thread.

No, I really just wanted to know why 5:4 was a thing. It seemed briefly popular and then it just disappeared when widescreen started taking over. The question's been answered, though, so this thread doesn't really have much more purpose.

>You came here to ask a question you could have researched yourself with libraries of already existing information.

I probably could have done a bit of research, but I don't guess there's much discussion about why 5:4 came to be and why it went away. A quick Google is showing just basic info on the resolution.

>>45363227
DAE hate 16:9?

I feel so cool and accepted by randoms on /g/ now. I don't have to kill myself now.

If I remember right it was to maximize on limited video hardware. The 1280 width was what most video cards could handle and putting the vertical resolution to 1024 fit nicely into what was available and offered more for typical office work than 1280x960.
Take what I said with a lot of salt though.

>>45362542
5:4 to 4:3 is like 16:10 to 16:9, but instead of 11% more vertical space there's only 6% more.

I have a 5:4 as a second vertical monitor

our eyes can't see more than 4:3 at a time anyway

>>45362542
I have it and I love it... It's good for programming and for browsing

>>45362542
its 4:3 on 17" inch square

2560x1600 monitors are kinda expensive

>>45362542
My secondary monitor is 5:4, shit's great.

I have an older HP IPS 17" LCD panel right in front of me with 1280x1024, don't even use it for some reason. Always wanted to have dual monitors or something more (along with the laptop display) but whenever I hook it up and use it for a bit I just find myself still spending more time focusing on the laptop display so, bleh, doesn't seem to do much for me and my particular workflow I suppose.

>>45366455
Get a Raspberry Pi or equivalent.
Make a souped up clock/picture frame.

>>45366488

>build shit and waste money that will waste electricity and more money just to have yet another fucking clock

Yeah, right.

>>45362653
My nigga. Asus 16:10 1920x1200 24" professional IPS reporting in.

>>45362695
What's the reason? I spend more time doing computer stuff (digital art, coding, designing, etc) than watching 16:9 movies.

>>45362542

I'm glad 3:4 5:4 and square like ratios died

you don't have any idea how much I struggled years ago when having two work with 2 or 3 parallel documents

then in my office we got the sony gdm-fw900, what a great monitor it was like 2300x1440 and now I could easily have 2-3 documents in the screen

I believe the best setup is one 16:9/16:10 main monitor and one 4:3/5:4 as a secondary

>>45362542
I miss 4:3. I never have enough vertical space with 16:9. It's called widescreen but it really ends up as shortscreen.

>>45362542
The entire internet was built on 5:4, that's why we have empty spaces on every website.

>>45362612
No real advantages of 5:4 to 4:3, at least none that I can see. So, I can't really speak on behalf of that argument here.
16:9 became popular because mah vidya and mah multimedia entertainment. However, computers were originally designed to improve work and continue to be used to do so. 16:9 gives a fair bit of horizontal space at the cost of vertical space. This equates to extra needless scrolling through documents (with wasted space to the left and right of said documents) as well as neck pain (from looking down on a screen that's, say, on a laptop or at a desk).
>inb4 just turn the screen 90 degrees
Most stands that come with monitors don't support this, and laptop screens sure as hell don't support it either. You shouldn't have purchase a whole new stand just so that you can use your monitor that came with its own.

>>45368313
3 years ago maybe? Most sites have width=100% images and muh html5 effects now.
Wich sucks when I try to browse with a window at half resolution (1280x512)

>>45368289
how do resolutions work itt