Why aren't computer displays measured in mega pickles instead

mega pickles don't tell aspect ratio

>>59495895
Vertical resolution doesn't either.

>>59495924
How? It's fixed, 1080p is 1920x1080
1440p is 2560x1440 and so on

>>59496003
900p could be 1400x900 or 1600x900, 768p could be 1366x768 or 1024x768.

You're wrong.

>>59495791
A better question is why aren't screens measured by pixel density? A 1080p 13" monitor looks much better than a 1080p 27" one.

>>59496423
Ppi is actually featured in the description of most screen products

>>59496040

xxxxp notation is for 16:9 only. You are idiot.

>>59496423
>A 1080p 13" monitor looks much better than a 1080p 27" one.

Yeah, why on Earth one would like the screen to occupy bigger view of angle? 5" 4K FTW.

>>59496423
Because you view laptop and desktop screens from a different distance.

>>59496452
1200p

>>59496452
The p stands for progressive scan, not any particular ratio. If anyone is using it to mean 16:9 then they're being intentionally obtuse and in a far-from-standardized way.

>>59496474
Not really... What average distances are you imagining?

File: file.png (28KB, 814x171px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 814x171px

>>59496452
>Usually
Relying on current trends is stupid.

>>59495791
Screens would be better measured in megapixels and square inches. Instead we get vertical resolution and diagonal length because normies are retarded.

>>59496596
Vertical and horizontal pixels with diagonal measurement is superior. Given those values both MP and sq" can be found.