I'm a fellow 4:3 fan. I understand why width is more useful to some users than height, but I feel like it's a monoculture.
Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.
Sony made (and may still make) a clamshell PC intended to fit in a coat pocket with a 1600x768 screen. I'm not sure how they marketed that aspect ratio.
Comments
I'm a fellow 4:3 fan. I understand why width is more useful to some users than height, but I feel like it's a monoculture.
Beyond that, I feel like computer buyers everywhere have been duped. In 2003, there were 15" laptops with QXGA (2048x1536) screens. by 2008, the best you could get in a 15" laptop was WUXGA (1920x1200). Now, with a few soon to disappear exceptions, it's FHD (1920x1050). Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.
Note how these are not getting wider; they're only getting shorter.
A friend of mine said the term around his house for these HD displays is "short screens."
TV engineers used to call wide screen "fewer lines".
I suppose if they reduce the height even more they can call it "ultra-wide".
Sony made (and may still make) a clamshell PC intended to fit in a coat pocket with a 1600x768 screen. I'm not sure how they marketed that aspect ratio.