Ultra-widememe

Then try to play Heroes of Might and Magic or GTA 2 on widescreen, you piece of shit.
Or did you by "vidya" meant "interactive movies"? Even the name you used is similar to video.

I mean first person games, primarily Thief 1/2, Deus Ex, any shooter, etc.

How the fuck do you do it with multiple monitors?

Literally never understood the many monitors meme

With a lot less toggling between windows/workspaces, the ability to rapidly compare things from multiple sources, and more of my palettes up simultaneously or just watching TV and chatting in the background if I'm not actually doing anything productive.

Not just photographers. NASA created this one

I don't know what I'm going to do when I finally need to replace my current 1280:1024 monitor. I have fought the scam tactic of forcing people to widescreen since its inception and I'm not about to give up now. Unfortunately, the manufacturers have just about given up entirely on 5:4 and 4:3.

Technically the ideal aspect ratio is more of a perfect square because that's the field of view for complete binocular vision.

5:4 master race

If you're still using a resolution as low as SXGA, I'd think the bigger issue would be stubbornly hanging onto your CRT. OLED when

There's a sick nasty OLED monitor coming out soonish
youtube.com/watch?v=m2Vqbi71Lek
Someone can me a webm or something.

5000 buckaroos though

I wish, all it's missing is FreeSync/G-Sync. That thing has supposedly been "slated for release" 8 months, missing one deadline after another.

And the price is inexcusable today, considering how cheap OLED tablets and (to a much, much lesser degree) TVs now are in comparison. If I wanted to pay high quadruple-digits for an OLED monitor, I'd get a PVM.

My most productive work was always with just a single maximized xterm, or even just the text console of any computer, including my old DOS 486. When multitasking is needed, tmux/screen did the job, and even DOS had similar tool All that without constant distractions, or gobbling up tons of resources, or needing GPU and other modern botnet hardware.

Text mode (no graphics to speak of) is enough for a whole lot of programming and other text-centered stuff.
And the games I like to play are all old 70's to early 90's type stuff, typically 640x480 at the very most.

I just want a 2:1 screen. Is that too much to ask?

Games of that vintage (especially color ones) typically don't work right on any kind of PC monitor, instead demanding a TV-style composite display.

I'm aware of questionable SIP blocks in NICs, mobo chipsets, and CPUs, but that's Holla Forumsposting a little too hard, don't you think?

21:9 is pretty close.

...

It's all space for advertising

Whatever happened to those bistable eInk prototypes?

If you have a VGA card you can typically play EGA and CGA stuff too. Maybe it won't be 100% perfect, but I don't really care.
Other computers (not IBM PC derived) of course had different video. My Amstrad CPC even had proprietary monitor with the computer's power supply built into it. Actually even their PC1512 (basically an XT clone with CGA display) was the same way.
But this is all neither here nor there, and I'm happier with any of those old machines than modern hardware or games.

And yes, the modern botnet is exploitable too. Kaspersky found malware hiding in firmware area of hard disk, and the memory sieve bug attacked an architecture flaw to gain negative ring privileges from the CPU. There's bound to me tons more such vulnerabilities.

THE HUMAN EYE CAN'T SEE MORE THAN 24 FPS

You mad OP?

-Posted from a 21:9 monitor

Fuck Dell. I bought one U2410 off them years ago and I started getting currynigger cold calls and physical junk mail the next week. Never again.

You are at Makise Kurisu levels of attention whoring, user. That's dangerous.

Until he breaches MikeyUSA levels, the cancer won't be completely inoperable.

Do you by any chance have archives of MikeyUSA spergouts? I'm bored as fuck.

encyclopediadramatica.se/MikeeUSA
hollaforums.com/thread/605120/technology/grsecurity-is-preventing-others-from-employing.html (weird knock-off archive, search for "fem" to go to the good stuff)
endchan.xyz/lv/res/42.html
archive.is/tsJVu

Just start a thread about FOSS first-person shooters. It'll hit bumplock from his sheer autism all on its own.

Thanks based user.

The meme IS already dying. They tried with the curved ultra-wide shit and that too failed.

The real question should be: Why the hell is there no real innovation in the industry anymore?

yes!

Well at least part of what MikeeUSA stands for is basically correct. I too believe that feminism and woman's suffrage are what caused the downfall of western civilization. And if Yuri Bezmenov were still alive, he'd probably agree as well. But MikeeUSA goes about it the wrong way by trying to directly attack the useful idiots, when there is no chance to awaken them in any way, much less such an aggressive manner. They will only come to their senses when the situation is too far gone to reverse, and then it will be time for them to die, their purpose having been served, and their tendency to rebel against the new order (once they find out they've been tricked and used) much too dangerous for them to be allowed to remain in existence.
Anyway, I downloaded a bunch of his games some years ago, just because I tend to archive open source games. I don't have the Nexuiz maps that ESR talks about, but I got some text-based games and a bunch of maps for Crossfire. I can upload the whole lot somewhere if anyone wants it.

Allow me to interject for a moment. You must watch this video to understand CGA.

youtube.com/watch?v=niKblgZupOc

The guy explains how developers used to rely on composite video: as it blurs the pixels together, if you made meshes combining certain colors, they would mix and produce colors that the hardware strictly could not do. That was a common trick on consoles too, up to the Genesis/SNES era.

Nope. My phone has an OLED screen, and I really don't want an OLED monitor. Yes, the colors are beautiful... at first. But the diodes degrade rather quickly, especially the blue ones, giving the picture a very noticeable yellow tint in just a couple of years.

So here's the real wave of the future: quantum dot screens. If they are as good as manufacturers claim, they'll have the long life of regular LCDs and the rich colors of a brand-new OLED. They're still crazy expensive, but hopefully prices will come down with time.

This one is curved too, doesn't look ridiculous at all, and you can't prove it does.

...

Why does that inkjet printer have a qwerty keyboard?

Wait is that for realsies?
Where did you get that shit user?

It looks like a shitty, mary sue insert fursona was into tf'ing into a computer.
What the fuck is that shit doing above the keyboard, looks awful.
Overall, I r8 8/80, still better design than a macbook.

Yeah that was a cool trick for CGA games to get more color. Then the game asks you if you have RGB or composite monitor.
Try this one in dosbox, it's pretty fun:
myabandonware.com/game/burgertime-f
^see the comments on how to set the correct mode

Also the Amstrad PC1512 was using some kind of enhanced 16-color CGA, so some pretty nice games were possible.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PC-1512

I hope you're referring to pure QD OLEDs (which are experimental technology that hasn't even reached the prototype phase for displays), not to so-called QD TVs (which are just normal LCDs with all the flaws of any other LCD, but better-filtered backlights).

I think the fact that manufacturers charge so much for OLED is the real problem. The original reason OLED was preferred to conventional silicon LEDs, was because they were supposed to be disposable technology absurdly cheap to manufacture, capable of being made with an inkjet printer on dirty substrates as basic as paper! Such things were demonstrated in market-ready prototypes as far back as 1998 by Philips LEP project, but instead, OLED is manufactured with the same fussiness as LCD in cleanroom fabs on wafers.

Really, if they aren't going to make printed OLED, they should just use conventional LEDs (which are already durable, cheaper than LCDs, and smaller than the smallest commercial direct-view subpixel), like Sony's "Crystal LED".

Why would a bigger monitor become necessary if that's all you plan on using your PC for?

It's not. I used old IBM Thinkpad laptops with 14-inch screen for years. Of course they could do at least 1024x768 but I normally ran them at 800x600 simply because the X server fonts looked better to me like that, and also there was more choice of small fonts and less big ones.
For web browsing with Links-2 or Dillo, 800x600 was also adequate.
For coding or reading documents (even man pages), being able to get more lines on the screen was a big bonus. 80x25 is workable, but even in DOS I sometimes switched to 80x50 mode. That squashed font wasn't so great though. Linux SVGATextMode (and later on, framebuffer console) had some better choice of fonts and text resolution.
Pic is a screenshot I took 5 years ago on one of those laptops. It's just twm, an xterm, and Gargoyle IF interpreter running Snowball by Level 9 Computing (ZX Spectrum version).

I wouldnt mind a laptop like that if it was pocket sized and had one of those lenovo nipples

I'd only get something like that if it had a full-sized 110-key layout complete with numeric keypad.

As someone who's only ever seen the neon-purple version of CGA, that's quite interesting.

I hope there's enough autism that all this gets corrected eventually, to prevent the pixelshit-style excessive retroness that hipsters tend to impose on old tech. Another example would be the pixel aspect ratio/picture aspect ratio confusion effecting games like Doom and Super Metroid.

I use 2. Browse web with one, have music player open in the other so I don't have to switch back and forth between windows. Or if I'm using something like LaTeX I'll have the script on one screen and the live output on the other.

it's also good for porn, web browser on one screen and file browser on the other, just click and drag

Some aspects of the art might seem off, but other parts make it clear that Super Metroid was drawn to be stretched to 4:3 by a typical television.

So, just like CCFL backlights, then?

Widened aspect isn't a problem with increasing resolution. I have however used a 16:9 27" in portrait mode and it is slightly over the maximum desirable height for a monitor.

4:3 is the best way to make the largest possible monitor area with acceptable ergonomics. Anything larger than a 4:3 36" would be impractical and much of the screen would be heavily off-axis.

Yeah, sure.

Multiple monitors is a meme pushed by monitor manufacturers. A proper tiling WM is better for productivity in most cases, whereas multiple monitors just equals multiple distractions.

Those are shit games. I don't know any smart person who plays shooters.
How does your screen perform in HoMM, GTA2, old console games?

He still has bigger vertical resolution than stupid people's laptops and screens (1366x768)

Haha you really fucking think jews will prefer to sell longer lasting screens?

You might be onto something. Why buy 2x 24" screens if you can just buy one big that will cover same area and pixels? It would be cheaper and you wouldn't have border, separation

But how to activate "tiling" in Microsoft Explorer? Where should I click? When I click right on taskbar it shows some tiling options, should I click?

The best games for widescreen/surround-multimonitor aren't actually FPSs, but vehicle sims.

And 1366x768 is a netbook resolution, user. People don't use those because they're stupid, they use them because they're flat broke.

Aside from software limitations, the only reason to get more smaller monitors instead of less bigger ones, is $/pixel (up to and including "they don't make 'em big enough). Speaking of software, you can emulate bigger or multiple virtual monitors using a variety of software, like Windows 10's Task View.

Just because human vision is 4:3, it doesn't make small monitors more comfortable in that radio. If people found it more comfortable, they would dominate the market but they don't, so you are an exception.

Human vision is actually 1:1 for the eyes, and (220°x120°) closer to 2:1 including peripheral vision due to occlusion from the face (nose, brow, cheeks, eyesockets). Also note that full visual acuity (20:20 for most people, or the ability to perfectly resolve 1 pixel/arcminute) is confined to a tight area of about 5°, dropping off substantially up to 20°, thence plumetting to near-blindness in peripheral vision. This is compensated for by constant, unconscious eyeball movements that scan over areas of interest for detail, aided by the fact that eyeball rotation is the fastest movement in the human body.

Anyway, best aspect ratio is ~1.61803:1.

Nobody uses peripheral vision to read, so that 2:1 ratio doesn't apply. They eye has to focus clearly on text for it to be legible. But you can only move your eyeballs so far, before it's uncomfortable and you have to move your entire head to get any further. And then it becomes much easier to lose track of which line you were on.
That's the big problem with widescreen displays. A maximized terminal window or web browser or other document has lines too long for the eyeball alone to handle them, so you end up turning your entire head constantly, which is very tedious and uncomfortable. With a 4:3 display, like my old IBM Thinkpad laptops, I didn't have to turn my head at all, because I could even scroll the document line-by-line and keep my visual focus on the center line (or bottom, or bop, or whatever line is most comfortable at the time) and this all happens naturally and subconsciously.
The old way worked perfectly for me for decades. Now I can't even use my 15-inch 16:9 laptop without feeling like shit all the time. Only way around that is to make the window more narrow than the screen by several inches on each side. But in doing so, I'm being robbed of the screen I paid for, and the smaller vertical size also means I get to display less lines at a time. And that suboptimal workaround doesn't even work if I try to use the plain text console, which was always my favorite way to run Unix.

Just use two windows next to each other you square screen scum. 16:9 is meant for 2 8:9 windows (4:4.5, you can make them smaller if you are that much of an autist and you need exactly 4:3).

It's not meant for anything except watching movies and (new, widescreen) games, which is all you ever must do since you're shilling so hard.
People who do actual work don't like these new shit consumerist displays.
gadgetteaser.com/2010/01/21/professionals-still-lament-the-43-laptop/
And two windows doesn't even fit, not with a big enough font for it to be comfortably visible, unless I make second window around 30-40 columns (pointless!) The old 4:3 display was perfect though, but they had to fuck it up in order to make a few more bucks, by cutting smaller screen surface.

16:9 or 4:3, ALL horizontal aspect ratios are just generally terrible for reading, which is why most smaller printed matter has always been vertical, and proper full-sized books, newspapers, and magazines all use slender column layouts.

The web, especially, is saturated in ignorant and amateurish layout that demands too much eye movement, page movement, or both, in spite of the powerful dynamic layout tools granted by CSS and PDF for over a decade.

One of the few things I immediately appreciated about the switch to flat panel displays, is that it's much easier and cheaper to get rotatable mounts.

FYI I'm a webdev and I use nvim on my 16:10 screen and yet I don't lose my place on it or manpages or whatever examples the autists above gave
You can only lose your place if you have ADHD and can't focus on shit

Same here, it's genuinely giving me a headache and I feel like my eyes are going to come out of their sockets. Fucking Jews and their 16:9

This is hilariously wrong

gadgetteaser.com/2010/01/21/professionals-still-lament-the-43-laptop/

Keep on shilling though you fucking kike

My point wasn't that people read with peripheral vision. Quite the opposite, that people read in a visual area far too small for the aspect ratio of a screen to matter. Note my later post where I refer to properly formatted text outside the retarded world of computers.

Either get a real computer, or use your phone when you're away, fuccboi.

You can't shit on your own taste hard enough.

I would love to see this meme brutally murdered. Screens are getting wider, but not taller. In the last few years I've noticed that it's a huge problem.

4:3 is a pretty good resolution. 8:5 is okay too if you really need to have two windows side by side. But this 21:9 bullshit has got to go.

Widescreen displays are really nice for movies and vidya, although 21:9 is only practical for vidya and nothing else.

The Chromebook Pixel is 3:2. You won't touch it despite the nearly-square screen because what you really care about is being an edgy, elitist hipster :^)

Trouble is, that's a glorified thin terminal, not a full-featured computer.

why don't we have 1:1 monitors yet?

Isn't that supposed to be far less of a problem with newer OLEDs?

I wasn't aware the laptop scene was that dire. I was actually thinking of getting a new craptop recently but if I have to settle for widescreen diarrhea then maybe I don't care after all.

Only when it's the shit vidya that were made to follow the movie aspect ratio trend. Widescreen is annoying for traditional, good vidya.

...

There's more to it than that: unlike traditional desktop work and reading which mainly benefits from taller rather than wider screens, 3D and first-person video games greatly benefit from wider aspect ratios. The horizontal visibility they provide which is generally more important than vertical visibility would require ridiculously high FOVs leading to either a tiny image or really tall monitor compared to a 16:9 monitor. As monitors and televisions become taller they also become harder to balance on their stands, so wider desktop monitors offer a more practical balance of space and visibility for vidya purposes.
I also think widescreen offers more possibilities for visual composition than 4:3 but that's probably subjective and only applicable to art/filmfaggotry.

If human vision is 1:1/2:1 then why are VR headset screens 9:5?

3D does not require wider screens at all. The engineering aspect is in fitting two pixels in a traditional one-pixel space for stereoscopic effect. And in the sense of 3D encompassing your entire field of vision, 4:3 would absolutely be more appropriate for immersion.

Who can say why they chose 9:5 (might be pure faggotry), but keep in mind those should be designed for the field of vision of a single eye, not both eyes together.

It looks like it was literally designed for Twitter.

end your life

Got money to burn?
eizo.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/

fug

Technically, circular would be better.

Metal Slug aside, you do realize most arcade games had vertical aspect ratios, right?

Because all the popular efforts at HMDs use recycled cellphone OLED panels (not even very modern ones, 1080p for each eye!?) instead of dedicated VFDs that are capable of far higher resolutions and much smaller.

He probably means console games, for standard CRT TV in 4:3 position, instead of rotated like in arcade machine.
Also of course, old computer games, before widescreen madness.

Games today aren't a very good argument for more vertical room, mostly being 3D and taking place on or near landscapes. Even old scrolling 2D games, aside from shmups, tended to emphasize horizontal more than vertical awareness.

Outside games, reading requires so much vertical space, horizontal aspect ratios as a whole aren't particularly adequate.

No, if I were to put my finger on something that clashes with widescreen layouts, it would be UI designs that seem to push harder and harder on eating up precious vertical screen real estate with more and more screen-wide horizontal panels, bars, ribbons, titles, menus, and docks, each with heaps of unused whitespace so they can stretch from edge to edge. Worse, they're usually locked irremovably to the tops and bottoms of windows, or even to the screen edges, both accumulating with each other!

What we need is the return of floating palettes, so we can efficiently use just the screen space we need, in the shape we want (horizontal or vertical, line or box), where we want it, on the monitor we want. Preferably with some kind of sticky positioning and resizing feature, like Photoshop.

I play enough regularly to know that you're quite wrong. Vertically-scrolling shmups are the exception, far from the majority of arcade games.

Actually, I would buy it if was available in Australia which it isn't

I wont tough it because its expensive as shit and has a butchered keyboard layout so it'll be less than stellar even if you do load up linux onto it.

buy it* rather than tough.

I play CS:GO on 21:9

I've never understood people saying surround/1440p/4k/120Hz/240Hz/etc is "pointless" without a super-powerful rig driving it, considering there's thousands of classic games that can scale well beyond what any kind of available display is capable of on any decent midrange system.

So, quantum dot is the shit?

True quantum dot 'would be the shit.

However, as I said upthread, quantum dot is vaporware. Just like the way LCDs with LED backlights are now shilled as "LED monitors", so-called "quantum dot monitors" are in fact just LCDs with quantum dot filters over the backlights, and just like native LED displays, this false advertising is slurping up all the R&D money from quantum dot displays into the bottomless moneypit that is LCD.

LCD is the 80x86 of direct-view video technologies, we are never, fucking ever, going to escape it.

I've been dreading that shit from the start. Preaching against all those faggots who went "oooh, look, a shiny widescreen monitor! That is probably better because it's wide and shit" that it sucks and only nice for movies.

No luck though, the masses have decided. After my last 4:3 died on me, and the cheapest 4:3 for sale cost 500, while a similar specced 16:9 was only 200, so I gave in to the hype.

I was one of those who even used to turn the screen 90 degrees for documents, browsing and even coding. A high screen makes much more sense for many things. Most 16:9's can be turned 90 degrees, because their stand isn't high enough for it, but when they can it actually works great.

why

This used to be a very popular resolution for 17" LCDs actually.
CRTs were 4:3 and would need 1280x960 to avoid nonsquare pixels.

Games of that vintage typically run well in emulators. And then you get those unsightly black bars on the sides. RRRRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

If the window is too wide for you, then make it narrower. Move your taskbar and toolbars to the side of the screen (fuck you Microsoft and your Ribbon "toolbar"!). Move your browser tabs to the side with a proper extension (TreeStyleTab FTW!) Use extra space on the side to host other windows - file manager, music player, whatever. Heck, have a gkrellm running on the side. There are lots of ways to use that space effectively.

Seriously, I hate shortscreens myself, but your rationalizations are horrible.

Use tmux you stupid nigger.

Kek, thanks for reminding me I'm on Holla Forumschan!

I won't touch it because except the screen, its hardware is utter crap. I would love to see that screen in a proper laptop though!

Shame the resolution is so low. I would spend serious money for a ~30" 4k×4k screen. Or, fuck, a 4k×3k one.

This guy gets it.

That's something I noticed when I played Drunken Robot Pornography (best name for a game I've ever seen). Since its arenas and bosses are tremendously vertical, it was hard to see the enemies and attacks coming from above. I need a lot more vertical pixels, but since everything is shortscreen now, I need a huge monitor.

Is that like Quake 3 meets shmup boss battles?

Face it, dude, those aren't coming back for the forseeable future. If you just have to scratch that itch, you'd best be on the lookout for 51nb's Chinese ThinkPad mods.

Strangely, 1280x960 was a lot less popular than 1280x1024 back in the CRT days. I always shrank the width properly using the gun controls, but I saw a lot of people who had theirs defaulted to squash-o-vision and also had the margins set wrong.

80x25 TEXT CONSOLE on widescreen doesn't get any better just by running tmux.
At the very most you can do something with tmux if you're lucky enough to have a working framebuffer console, but not everyone does, and this laptop doesn't.

...

Trump is gonna ban wiidescreens when he becomes president.

I can't wait for the 4147200 x 1 resolution monitor. These slow steps towards true widescreen is just prolonging the inevitable.

pleb.

...

We have to go wider.

HELL YEAH!
SQUARE SCREEN DEATH SQUADS

1.25 ratio is the best
5:4 is more square than 4:3
only display I found was an old 1280x1024 lenovo thinkvision and I bought it cheap.
I hate new monitors unless they bring back the classic 5:4 ratio but highly impossible as most of the time the clock rate needs to be set manually to function properly with weird 75-80Hz monitors so companies got stuck with 16:9 60Hz cancer. Sure some 4:3 exist but all of 'em that exist today are only 0.7 megapixels and a 768 width impossible to do anything productive unless set GUI elements to a higher DPI.

If a decent 2560x2048 gets released by reliable brands I'd definitely buy one as all that exists now are just unknown chink brands or medical stuff.

Today's monitors are horrid.

It's like how they killed the ergonomic 'oldschool geek' keyboards and then replaced tactile mice wtih full-touch surface: "raise both fingers when clicking otherwise I will scroll like fucker -touchpad."

At least there's been an oldschool renaissance in the keyboard market, every technology from the obscure Alps switches I favored in classic Macs, to the buckling spring mechanisms of old IBMs, available brand new to the discerning typist.

Nothing of the kind exists in the direct view display market, where in spite of Asian factories still producing small but surprising numbers of cheap-o tubes for the 3rd-world market, absolutely nobody has seen fit to make high-performance enthusiast CRTs. CRTs aside, plasma is dead (never having produced a PC gaming monitor!), OLED is dying, and SED/FED are still firmly entombed.

wtf are you talking about you never worked a single day in your life, the only thing you did with it was shitposting from your whoremom's basement you 30+ years old virgin incel neckbeard

PS1 too, the console outputs in some weird 18 bit colour despite being a 32 bit system. It's easy to notice in RGB mode.

amazon.com/FlexScan-EV2730QFX-Monitor-1920x1920-EV2730QFX-BK/dp/B00R58MLSY
>List Price: $1,439.00
Why is it so expensive? Why is shipping so expensive?

Its components are produced below mass-market quantities, and it's sold primarily to the medical market. At least it isn't as ludicrously expensive as TV industry monitors.

I just bought a 16x9 monitor even though I don't like widescreens. It was the most reasonable purchase all other things considered.

Now you got me curious about turning it sideways. I'd have to fashion my own mount and it isn't VESA compatible mount.

Click on the seller. It ships from Italy.

1:1 is expensive even though it costs the same to make

In other words, Holla Forums is full of autistic retards that have no clue what the fuck they're talking about

It would only cost the same to make if they reached similar production volume.

EXTRA big-ass SCREENS!
NOW with MORE pixels!

Gotta go wider!