Remember when people used to feel special for having a 1680x1050/16:10

>>55811674
16:10 is god tier it's just not widely available

Recently acquired one for use with laptop, such a massive subjective upgrade.

>>55811674
I'm using a 1680x1050 monitor right now, definitely sticking with 16:10 when I upgrade.

I have a 1920x1200 monitor and it's ok. I prefer the 1080p monitor since it feels more natural

16:9 was more popular for TV and laptop panels because MUH MOVIES from MUH NORMIES, so it was a simply matter of cost reduction.

16:10 went extinct because it's too expensive to bother producing separate panels for the workplace when comparably sized 16:9 panels do the job nearly as well.

Under 1200 vertical pixels always felt somewhat cramped to me. 1440p on the other hand feels like a generous amount of vertical space, and the 16:9 ratio just gives it a little more space in the sides compared to 16:10.

I wish 16:10 laptops were still generally available. My 15" 16:9 just doesn't feel right for work compared to my old 15" 16:10. Don't have the funds for a 3:2 Surface Pro or expensive 16:10 Mac or whatever

>>55811994
>not adjusting DPI with higher resolutions
What's the point in buying a fancy monitor if you're just going to use it to view a few lines more of shitty text at a time? I hope you enjoy your eye strain and/or back problems from leaning in constantly.

>>55812051

I beg to differ. Obviously adjust it on a high res laptop, but at 27" you better buy glasses if you can't use 1440p without scaling.
I scale/zoom the browser though, no reason not to for 1024 pixel width websites.

>>55811674
I still own 3 of them

>>55811714
What's so good about it?

>tfw 16:10 laptop

>>55814307
More vertical space.

>>55812051
What's the point of buying a high resolution monitor if you're just gonna make it function like a lower-resolution one?

>>55811674
Jewness happened. 16:9 panels are much cheaper so most companies try to push the plebeian aspect ratio even though it's suboptimal for anything but vidya and movies.

Though at least there are options with desktops, in laptop sector Apple and Microsoft are literally the only options now if you don't want to get cucked.

>>55811994
I honestly wish 4:3 laptops or 5:4 ones were available. The square shape is really nice, I love how my T60P handles.

>>55817406
Chromebook Pixel is 3:2

>>55814311
might consider getting one then
16:9 is terrible on a laptop

>>55811994
>16:9 ratio just gives it a little more space in the sides compared to 16:10.
No it does not.

1440p 16:9 have 2560 pixels in width, 16:10 have the same but 1600 vertically instead so 16:10 have more pixels than 16:9.

Remember when people used to care about picture and motion quality?

Remember when aspect ratio numbers were not doubled for no reason at all?

File: Untitled.png (3MB, 1594x897px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1594x897px

Had a 1680x1050 monitor back in the day before realizing that it was an unusual resolution or aspect ratio.
Learned that I could fullscreen 16:9 movies without having to actually fullscreen the video player.

When I upgraded my monitor I went with two 1920x1200's.
16:10 is god tier for portrait screens since it's still just wide enough that webpages load as intended, and just a little extra space to work with on Word / Excel.

>>55817406
4:3 laptops are by far the best, the aspect ratio makes them more portable than this stupid ass muh thin fad. 4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4

>>55814336
and thats good because?

>>55818382
Are you fucking retarded? The only thing widescreen's good for is movies. More vertical space is good because you use your computer for almost anything other than watching movies

File: x61-vs-g74.jpg (188KB, 1800x1200px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1800x1200px

>>55818351
this, fuck 16:9
>picrelated, 12 inch 4:3 next to 17 inch 16:9

I have 2x 1920x1200 monitors, I want a 2x 2560x1600 so bad.

>>55818382
Watching 16:9 content without having to full screen, better for documents and productive activities, more natural aspect ratio for sight.

>>55818351
How does it make them more portable? Besides, isn't the keyboard + trackpad idea for a 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio but not so ideal for 4:3?

Take the new Macbook and look at the base, there is nothing else left to cut to end up with a smaller base, and following the base, there is also no way to make the screen 4:3

File: PowerBook G4.jpg (189KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

189KB, 1600x1200px

>>55818524
>How does it make them more portable
See >>55818351
>4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4
>Besides, isn't the keyboard + trackpad idea for a 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio but not so ideal for 4:3?
No. 4:3 laptops were literally perfection. Pix extremely related, it's the best laptop ever made.

>>55818585
>4:3 laptop and 16:9 is like the difference between carrying a textbook and a 2x4
I ... don't see it anon. Books are pretty fucking 16:9.

As for pic related: Way too much space wasted on the palm-rests and between trackpad and palmrest. Cut that unnecessary space and you're back to 16:10.

>>55818654
>I ... don't see it anon. Books are pretty fucking 16:9.
Oh well, suck a dick. It's still true.
>Way too much space wasted on the palm-rests and between trackpad and palmrest
That space is there for the superior screen. I cut out the part where I said they should make the trackpad larger and turn it into a clickpad.

File: ratio.jpg (109KB, 890x769px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 890x769px

The squarer the laptop is the bigger it is if width is the same.

With the same horizontal resolution, the less square ratio is worse than the square one.

A 1920*1440 monitor is better than 1920*1080 for that reason.
The squarer the ratio the better it is, it takes more space.

If I can slap the same TV panel in a monitor housing why would I bother adding cost by cutting bigger panels?

Its the same shit that happened with 1366x768. I can keep the same vertical pixel count that 1024x768 panels use and just add more horizontal pixels to make some half-assed widescreen for all the consumers to lap up.

The way these panels are binned, its less chance for defects per panel = better yields. This is also why small screens in phones/tablets have insane pixel densities and why the vast majority of large displays (24in+) have terrible pixel densities.

>>55818832
All this wasted space and trackpad buttons. Fucking disgusting, man.

>>55818441
>I want a 2x 2560x1600 so bad.
I'm selling Eizo CG303W for 400€ and NEC PA301 for 500€.
Been hating them from the very beginning, too large and no way to look at the screen without seeing glow (the PA301 has little backlight bleed on the left center. It appears after the panel matrix has heated up).

>>55819091
That wide ass screen with practically no vertical space. Fucking disgusting, man.

>>55819091
I know, I made the image from memory of my last laptop I owned IBM R40 2682CAG, and a laptop I saw that was very "wide".

>>55819106
That too. Hence it's all about 16:10 master race. Horizontal space matters too, doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3

>>55819220
No, it's all about 4:3 masterrace.
>Horizontal space matters too
Fuck no.
>doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3
Why would I want to? I've only got two eyes, and even so I'd still only be reading one at a time.

File: 22.png (128KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 1920x1200px

>>55819220
>doubt you can display more than two word documents on a laptop with 4:3
1920*1200 16:10

File: 11.jpg (442KB, 1920x1440px) Image search: [Google]

442KB, 1920x1440px

>>55819220
1920*1440 4:3

So what about two documents?

Side by side? That's the same width.
Vertically? Well 16:10 have lower vertical resolution so it loses there.

>>55814307
It's more aesthetically pleasing in my opinion. All content looks cramped to me on a 16:9 monitor whereas on a 16:10, it looks natural.

>>55819337
>1920*1440
Would be 2560*1600 on a 16:10 screen, allowing you to display more.
Vertically everything upwards of 1200 is probably fine.

>>55819374
That too tbqh, also not just content but the ugly ass lower bezels on 16:9 screen laptops.

>>55819452
>2560x1600
Would be 2560x1920 on a 4:3 screen, allowing you to display more.

>>55818434
those laptops are dirty af and looks like they owned by a hobo

>>55811674
16:9 full hd faggotry happened. i miss my 16:10.
tried buying a new 16:10, but they don't exist with high resolutions.

>>55818585
>>55818654
Dont try to understand that autist, he is just another g retard who thinks everything not popular/widely used is the best ever

>>55819573
You're a fucking moron, I'm in no way a hipster. I liked 4:3 when 4:3 was popular and simply still do.

>>55819596
bla bla bla, let me guess, you like dumbphones too

>>55811674
im still using a 16:10 screen. feels nice for editing 16:9 content

>>55819452
No.
>>55819505
Yup

>>55819568
thats not very nice man

>>55818382

You can fit two 8x11" documents side by side

Something that's worth that wide ratio faggots:

Calling something that is <4000 4K

4K at 16:9 is 4096*2304
4K at 16:10 is 4096*2560

Retards that call 1440p 2K It's even worse because it's closer to 3K than 2K.

2K is a very old resolution I used back in 2001-2003 on my 19' CRT

2K at 4:3 is 2048*1536

>>55819612
No I've got a smartphone. I don't not like dumbphones though

>>55819713
You can that on 4:3 as well but without needing to scroll.

16:9 at 1920 have 2.07m pixels
4:3 at 1920 have 2.76m pixels

File: 1466612470666.gif (1MB, 508x583px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 508x583px

>>55811674
nonstandard = shit

File: Screen Shot 2016-07-29 at 4.34.20 PM.png (64KB, 698x537px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 698x537px

>>55811674
>he doesn't have a 1680x1050 laptop

File: monitor.jpg (349KB, 1600x1600px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1600x1600px

once you hit 40 inches the vertical real estate benefit of 16:10 goes away

I was getting sick of paying premiums on obsolete aspect ratios anyway

>>55821280
>tfw rocking a 1680x1050 desktop

>>55821332
Inches have nothing to do with it.
If I have 1080p 40 inch, that doesn't make it better than a 39.99999999 inch with 3x 1200p monitors.

>>55811959
>went extinct

friendly reminder that apple still use 16:10.

>>55811674
We upgraded to 21:9.

Though, honestly for games like Warblunder I think I would prefer 4:3 or 3:2 more.

File: 1361235792799.gif (2MB, 500x230px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x230px

>>55821875

It's because 1440p is enough vertical res whereas 1080 was a bit too restraining. The benefits of 16:10 aren't as pronounced anymore.

File: acer-predator-x34-front.jpg (616KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

616KB, 1600x1200px

Ultra wide is the new hot hipster ratio

>>55811674
>What happened?

It's not the early 00s anymore. Technology caught up - standard monitor res now is 1080p and people feel special when they have 1440p or 4k displays.

>>55822134
>Technology caught up
2002 I used 2048*1536
>standard monitor res now is 1080p
So it's a caught down then.

2001, IBM had 3840*2400 monitors.

>>55822162
Do you wish for a medal

>>55822171
I've had my metal 15 years, if anything, I should polish it.

>>55818456
>more natural aspect ratio for sight.
Yeah no, fuck off cunt

File: muh.jpg (2MB, 4147x2961px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4147x2961px

>remember when

like today? yeah, feels good man

>>55822272
How retarded are you?

>best Monitor for watching /tv/
Recommend me /g/

>>55822380
A 1920x1200 monitor would probably be best for that

>>55822395
what's /g/ recommended hive mind brand?

>>55822120
Ultrawide is beautiful, but not when games scale based on the horizontal resolution instead of the vertical, especially for fixed camera games (ie, you get less vertical view area instead of more horizontal)

>>55822420
Vast majority of games are Hor+ though

>>55821332
>better
>obsolete

LMAO. 16:10 is as obsolete as quality.

All the 16:10 posters have ascended to heaven and sit by the right hand of anime jesus. All thats left are perverted 16:9 basement dwellers and 4:3 cretins

>>55822413
If you go 1200 like anon said, then either ASUS VS24AH-P ($223) or a U2415 ($320) if you want higher quality / better color / thinner bezels (for multi-monitors).
Else if you go 1080 get a ASUS VC239H ($137) or Dell U2414H ($222).

Movies and TV shows are usually 720p, or 1080p at best.
4k is so rare at the moment that it probably won't be common for another 5 years in the movie industry, and even longer for 4k streaming TV / movies to catch on.

1080 lets you fullscreen a movie, and is the exact aspect ratio most things are filmed in.
1200 lets you fullscreen a movie without having to fullscreen the app due to the extra size, assuming your video player doesn't have some shitty UI that eats up screen space.

I will never see the appeal of 16:9

It's not wide enough to comfortably run 2 programs side by side, so what's the point then? you're just giving up vertical space

>>55811674
>mfw still 1360x768

bought a raspberry pi and cant use my pc monitor because it has no hdmi

>>55820066
it is a standard, you mong

i still use a dell fp2007 1600x1200 next to my new stuff

>>55822333
we get it, you vape
i still use my hd202 at my office today. had them since 2007 or 2008

>>55822692

my only complaint is the wires have started to kink a bit around the Y splitter, they're great headphones though and I think it's just user error

>>55822120
>>55822420
Bezels thicker than 1-2mm pretty much ruin this

>>55818832
This reasoning never made sense to me.

You can use similar reasoning to justify getting 16:9. The more rectangular the laptop is the bigger it is if height is the same.


So instead of 1680x1050, get a 1080p. Instead of 1920x1200 get a 16:9 1440p monitor, etc.

>>55811674
i've been using a 24 inch 16:10 screen everyday in the last 7 years

now everytime i use a 16:9 it feels awkward as fuck, it lacks vertical space

>>55822848
Vertical space is far more valuable than horizontal. Widescreen's only good for watching TV and movies made in the last decade.

>>55822858
16:10 has barely any more vertical space than 16:9.
If you were talking about 4:3 or 3:2 I would see where you are coming from, but 16:9 and 16:10 aren't that far apart.

>>55822848
>So instead of 1680x1050, get a 1080p. Instead of 1920x1200 get a 16:9 1440p monitor, etc.

You don't compare 1680 against 1920, you compare 1920 with 1920.

1920 16:9 vs 1920 16:10.
2560 16:9 vs 2560 16:10.

1050p is in a resolution tier of it's own.

1200p and 1080p are the same tier.

>>55822900
The difference between 16:10 and 16:9 is the difference between usable and unusable.

>>55822904
Quit referring to resolutions as *p, it just makes you look retarded. Call them by what they are. 1024x768 or XGA for example.

And all this time, I never knew that my mid-2007, 16:10 FLATRON was mustard race.

I thought I was just a weird person when I liked it more than the 16:9 alternatives.

>>55814336
By like a quarter of an inch

File: SpicyDonald.jpg (77KB, 699x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 699x960px

>>55811674
I still have one.
no money no honey

>>55822904
>You don't compare 1680 against 1920, you compare 1920 with 1920.
That's just as arbitrary. If there's a 16:9 monitor that is bigger than any available 16:10 monitors, it's nonsensical to tout the extra screen real estate for the 16:10 monitor vs. a 16:9 monitor that isn't the biggest. That works the other way too though, e.g. if a 16:10 monitor is bigger than any available 16:9 monitors.

>>55822890
You're right, and that's a better way to frame/word it than what I typically see.

>>55822943
There's a reason I use "p" because it's shorter and you know that damn fucking well so stop acting retarded.

>>55822960
Then you compare monitor sizes, not monitor ratio.

16:10 always have higher resolution than the same tier 16:9 version.

>>55822800
my cable is still perfectly fine, but while i was in uni and gave them to a friend for a while i think his fucking ears may have started melting the plastic on the cups. anyway, i cleaned off all of the plastic and now i just use them with the foam. zero issues with the cable still, though

i still laugh at idiots who overpay for stuff like bose

>>55823002
2560x1080
1920x1080
you can go eat a dick with your "p" now, to be quite honesterino

>>55823031
>2560*(>1400)
Shit you doing nigger?
Also, topic is 16:9 vs 16:10, not 21:9, which is even worse than 16:9.

>>55823002
What about interlaced?

>There's a reason I use "p" because it's shorter and you know that damn fucking well so stop acting retarded.
It's also very inaccurate.
>1200p
1600x1200? 1920x1200?
>1440p
1800x1440? 1920x1440? 2304x1440? 2160x1440? 2560x1440?
etc.

>>55822559
>It's not wide enough to comfortably run 2 programs side by side
that's 1080p. 1440p can do it fine.

>>55823080
At they are not 16:9, the topic is 16:9 and 16:10

>>55823085
and 1600p does it better with more vertical space.

File: 1469304723229.png (21KB, 93x189px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 93x189px

>1366x768 on 16.5" display (95ppi)
looks fine to my eyes yet anons always kick up a fuss about it for some reason
It's better than a 24" 1080p

>>55823085
Yea but at that point just get a second monitor

>>55823135
The topic is mainly 16:10, but in a thread about aspect ratios do you really think we're going to limit the discussion to just the one in OP? Throughout the thread people have discussed 3:2, 4:3, 5:4, 16:10, 16:9, and 21:9. It won't kill you to do it the proper way, I can guarantee it wouldn't even take more than a second. Quit your bitching you piece of shit.

Why isn't 16:10 called 8:5 anyway

>>55823147
It's a stupid resolution. I don't give a shit if the PPI's decent or not.

>>55823176
For easier comparison to 16:9

>>55823147
can't multitask on that shit tho

File: 1652100246-captain_obvious.jpg (14KB, 286x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 286x200px

>>55823135
>and 1600p does it better with more vertical space.

>>55823164
>bitching
>from the person that tore his ass inside out because his autism got triple triggered because someone used a standard that has been set for 1920*1080.
wew

>>55823147
you need glasses and you don't have any. am i right?

>>55822527
thankyou anonski

File: I love scrolling.jpg (534KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

534KB, 1366x768px

>>55823147
PPI doesn't matter if it's a shit resolution.
PPI matters when you can scale it without sacrificing good enough work space.
That's why UHD is good for PPI scaling since most poor fags thinks 1920*1080 and 1920*1200 is enough.

>>55823205
>a standard set for 1920*1080
It's 1920x1080 progressive scan. We're not talking about that. We're talking about the resolution 1920x1080. Besides, 1440p's not a standard thing and he used that too.

>>55823188
>For easier comparison to 16:9

Yep, same reason 21:9 is called that when it isn't even the actual ratio of the monitor

>>55818415
Like what?

>>55811674
>1050 lines of resolution
>not even 1080-tier

No one ever felt special for having a 1680x1050 monitor. It's not even good for watching TV, let alone anything productive.

>>55823237
Well we're not talking about 1080i (1280*1080) here are we?
Let your ass suck some more on your thumb because your face is busy taking care of the downs you have.

>>55823237
1440p is a standard, it's called QHD and it's 2560*1440, not 2K as retards may think.

>>55823240
Basically anything but watching moves

>>55823266
>Well we're not talking about 1080i (1280*1080) here are we?
No, we're talking about 1920x1080. So you could use 1920x1080, FullHD, or FHD.
>1440p is a standard, it's called QHD and it's 2560*1440, not 2K as retards may think.
Yes, QHD is a standard, and it is 2560x1440, but there's no such thing as 1440p. *p isn't just a term you slap onto any resolution's vertical height, you fucking dumbass.

>tfw people still think 16:9, 1.85:1 and 2.1/2.3:10 are better than objectively superior 4:3/1.35:1 for movies and 16:10 for gaming-browsing hybrid
If only...

>>55823287
>Basically anything but watching moves
Why?

>>55823287
Cry out your ass.

>1440p is the shortened name for a 2,560 x 1,440 resolution at a 16:9 aspect ratio. It is sometimes referred to as Quad HD because it offers four times the resolution of a 1,280 x 720 HD display.

>>55823302
Because how many websites do you scroll horizontally when browsing? How many text documents do you scroll horizontally to read? It's vertical space that matters everywhere except movies, more space = less scrolling.

>>55823323
no u
>1440p is the shortened name for a 2,560 x 1,440 resolution at a 16:9 aspect ratio.
No, that'd be QHD. *p is only acceptable in two cases: 720p and 1080p.

>>55822336
he's one of those fucks that thinks human vision sees 190 degree wide but only 15 degrees tall probably because of his fucking Neanderthal brow.

>>55823370
>more space = less scrolling
Is that it?

>>55823370
Bitch on, keep feeding.

Do you call 3840*2160 something retarded like 4K as well?
All PC monitors use progressive scan, thus there's 800*600p even if you hate it, that's the reality you have to deal with.

>>55823406
Basically. There's a few other benefits like more room for toolbars and stuff, but lines of text is mainly. What else did you think there was to it?

>>55823420
>Do you call 3840*2160 something retarded like 4K as well?
Of course not, I call it what it's supposed to be called. So if I'm not actually typing out the resolution 3840x2160, I call it 4K UHD, because that's what it is.
>All PC monitors use progressive scan
Well sure, but as far as *p labels go there's only 4320p, 2160p, 1080p, 720p, 576p, 480p, 360p, and 240p.

>>55819721
2k is simply 4:3 and is only 2048*1536, it was for photography first I think.

>>55823484
>4K UHD
>4K
woooow.

>Well sure, but as far as *p labels go there's only 4320p, 3200p, 2304p, 2160p, 1440p, 1200p 1080p, 1050p, 800p, 768p 720p, 576p, 480p, 360p, and 240p.
You forgot 1440p in that list, but don't worry, you probably didn't know all of them.

QHD (Quad HD), WQHD (Wide Quad HD),[2] or 1440p,[3] is a display resolution of 2560x1440 pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio.

In autumn 2006, Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) announced a 47 inch 1440p LCD panel to be released in Q2 2007;[4] the panel was planned to finally debut at FPD International 2008 in a form of autostereoscopic 3D display.[5] As of the end of 2013, monitors with this resolution are becoming more common. A list of monitors with QHD resolution is available.

>>55823594
Already covered 2K, I've been using it since 2002 on my 19' CRT.

All this shit is the reason "4k ready" is the term used in marketing. I'm working in advertising and the amount of misuse these terms get when we're dealing with video editors and everything going back and forth is immense.

>2k means QHD
>say fullHD and people are confused
>someone starts a 4k project in the software and takes years to import UHD content.

>>55823606
>woooow.
What? You asked me what 3840x2160 was, and that'd be 4K UHD. 4K is 4096x2304
>You forgot 1440p in that list, but don't worry, you probably didn't know all of them.
I didn't forget it, I left it out because it shouldn't be included.

>>55823710
>I didn't forget it, I left it out because it shouldn't be included.
Your opinion maybe.

>>55823733
Facts aren't opinions, dingleberry.

>>55823777
Indeed, your opinions aren't facts.

>>55823803
I never said otherwise. Thing is, 1440p isn't a thing. That's a fact.

I have a 16:10 (1920x1200) as my main monitor and a 5:4 (1280x1024) as a second one.
The 16:10 monitor can swivel, so maybe I get a 4k monitor one day and I can use the 16:10 monitor vertically for documents and code then.

still have a 1920*1200 8:5 monitor

>>55811714
>widely available
Kek

>>55811674
8*5? Do you mean 16*10 or are you retarded

>>55811959
I doubt that's it because lots of devices have non standard aspect ratio screens, it can't be that hard to produce them.

>>55812051
I have no trouble reading content on my 27" 1440p monitor.

>>55811674

I still have my Acer X223W 1680x1050. But I retired it for a 144hz 1080p display. I don't have enough desk space for another monitor.

>>55814307
Objectively more space to work with

Normies don't use computers for work though, they use them for netflix. Normies are surprisingly autistic about black bars.

I want 4:3 on my Linux box and 16:9 for my Windows box. Unfortunately my only choice for 4:3 is an old Dell Ultrasharp, 20".

>>55811959
Which is such bullshit because I literally never watch movies or shows on my computer any more. I've got a 55" TV with a bangin sound system for that and if I for some reason can't be arsed to crawl out of bed into the living room to watch shit I have a tablet on my nightstand. Don't fucking rob me of my work-friendly 16:10 display because 'black barz lel'.

>>55811994
Agreed, 2560x1440 is the baseline for 16:9 not feeling cramped and frustrating. 1920x1080 is borderline passable/somewhat usable, and any flavor of 16:9 below 1080 is absolute garbage.

>>55818654
A little too much wristrest is better than wideness that tempts manufacturers to cram in a stupid fucking numpad that throws the trackpad off center. Seriously, fuck non-centered home rows and trackpads on laptops.

>>55823031
>unironically using a noodle monitor

In 2010 I bought a 1920x1200 monitor

In 2015 I downgraded to a 1080p monitor.

>I feel superior because my monitor is an obscure resolution

Literally this entire thread

>>55825709
More like
>I'm happy with my setup because the monitors are something I use daily and suit my preferences

>>55825742
heh sure

>>55825751
I'm just sick of everyone pretending everyone else are hipsters. Eat a dick

>>55825766
*reads comment on filthy plebeian 1920x1080 monitor*

>>55821332
I've got 7 monitors, if I run out of space I just move things to another monitor