itt we post why 4:3 screens are technically and scientifically

File: serveimage(11).jpg (160KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 1200x900px

But you're wrong.
Scientists says that aspect ratio of 32:9 is best for your eyes. (Pic related)
Human eye can't see below 21:9 aspect ratio

>>62342981
We need to go wider

>>62342981
"4:3" takes one less byte of space than either of those

why would i want an inefficient monitor

who exactly are you working for

File: A2mathgame1.jpg (297KB, 900x1600px) Image search: [Google]

297KB, 900x1600px

>>62342901
I wish we were still 4:3
Sick of the wide aspect ratio. Its ok for movies, but not for web/computer reading.

>not 5:4

>>62343652
>browse webpage on 16:9 monitor
>huge margins
>browse webpage on 4:3 monitor
>instead of cutting out the margins it gives you the mobile version

>>62342901
>not 1:1

>>62343652
that game is silly

press 3 it looks like the tic-tac-toe button

>>62342901
mfw i literally have that dell monitor on my desk right now

>>62344878
do you have hair like that qt on the left y/n/m

>>62342901
Replaced dual 5:4 with single 21:9. No regrets.

>>62343652
>but not for web/computer reading
I stopped opening windows on the whole screen recently.