Why don't you have a 1:1 square monitor yet /g/?

It is not comfortable tilting your neck upwards.

>>55707593
fat fuck

Because my field of vision is not as tall as it is wide

>>55707582
i would if they were affordable

If phone screens count, I do. As far as actual desktop monitors go, this >>55707602

Why square?


If you want to see documents and such you can rotate your regular monitor.

File: 1407119379594.png (129KB, 724x611px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 724x611px

>>55707628
>using a blackberry

>>55707643
>not using the best phones

>>55707643
They are very popular with teenage girls for some reason.

>>55707660
Of course they are, they're practically the only modern phones that have hw keyboards

It costs too much.
I use two 16:9 monitors vertically next to each other from time to time though and it's great.

>>55707660
Are you still stuck in 2009?

>>55707598
not everyone has a giraffe neck fucking retard

>>55707582
they're £1000. do any other companies make modern 1:1 monitors

>>55707582
Because 5:4 is close enough

>>55707582

16:10 or GTFO. I hate that the world has gone to 16:9...

4:3 is decent, too, but a nice 30" 16:9 is all the monitor I ever need. With 4:3 I needed a minimum of two monitors.

Because 16:9 was more workspace.

>>55708553

Why do you say 16:10 you mogoloid

it's 8:5 .. and 3:2 is better

File: 1423388882492.jpg (27KB, 500x370px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 500x370px

>>55708579
>1920x1080 is more workspace than 1920x1920

>>55707582
Why does that monitor look taller than it is wide?

Also if I needed a lot of vertical workspace I'd just get a secondary monitor and rotate it.

>>55708553

17.7:10 > 16:10

>>55708596
>Why do you say 16:10 you mogoloid

Uh. Because that's what *everyone* calls it? Only an autist would simplify it, thus making immediate comparison to 16:9 (probably the most dominant aspect ratio in the world now) less obvious.

>>55707582
I don't need one.