LogoffonI don't remember anyone making monitors with "7:5"/"14:10" aspect ratio.

Those "monitors" are 11" iPads and iPad Pros. Maybe some phones too, they have countless different aspect ratios.

[URL='https://www.techpowerup.com/281978/huawei-readies-unorthodox-3-2-aspect-ratio-32-inch-monitor-with-4-5k-resolution']Huawei Readies Unorthodox 3:2 Aspect-Ratio 32-inch Monitor with 4.5K Resolution[/URL]

well not that much unorthodox, the ms surface uses it.

Personally as a PC screen that would be way better than 16:9. As someone that does cad dwgs from time to time, 16:9 kinda stinks for that. I hope we see more options and variety in the PC monitor space in the future.

lexluthermiester3:2 is just not a popular aspect ratio with the general public.

You mean that general public brainwashed and starched in marketing to believe that spending more desk space for lower height image is good?

16:9 is especially catastrophic in laptops:
You don't get half decent image height for working, reading content etc without laptop becoming huge, while in compact laptops image height is poor.
3:2 would be good compromise between old 4:3 and current lowered image height ratios for laptops.
On desktop 16:10 is quite good golden middle.
Also being close to golden ratio.

WirkoTo add my opinion to this nice bunch of opinions: wider aspect ratios go together well with large sizes. It may be so because of the way human sight works, or maybe because nothing is too wide once you have enough vertical pixels. I've had two 1920x1200 24" LCDs at home and at work for years, and I felt, um, compressed when I had to use two 1920x1080 24" monitors. At larger sizes, I'd pick 16:9 or even 21:9 without second thoughts. (The only affordable options for larger 16:10 LCDs seem to be ancient used 30" Dells and HPs, anyway.)

Except that about 99% of those don't have vertical size or pixel resolution making them just low screens, not wide screens.
Shorter viewing distance would help only to first problem.

I bought Dell U3014 in December 2013 and still there's no viable upgrade available from shops.
4K would be only one not downgrading vertical resolution and 32" size is needed for having roughly same vertical image size.
But high refresh rate capable models are just completely MIA.
Even LG's 27" models, which would need shortening viewing distance, have only nominal availability.

mechtechPersonally as a PC screen that would be way better than 16:9. As someone that does cad dwgs from time to time, 16:9 kinda stinks for that. I hope we see more options and variety in the PC monitor space in the future.

Hopefully new flat monitor techs (be it OLED or microLED) with less different parts in construction than in LCDs would bring more choise.

I love my matebook x pros panel, if this is anything like it and just as thin bezeled Id like it

EsaTYou mean that general public brainwashed and starched in marketing to believe that spending more desk space for lower height image is good?

Nope, I mean that people have solid reasons for not liking 3:2. Personal preferences are just that, personal. And you along with all of the other users in this tread trying(and failing) to justify their personal opinions against the rest of the public does not change the minds of the rest of the public.

EsaT16:9 is especially catastrophic in laptops

No, it's perfectly appropriate and well loved, which is why it is almost universally adopted.

lexluthermiesterNope, I mean that people have solid reasons for not liking 3:2. Personal preferences are just that, personal. And you along with all of the other users in this tread trying(and failing) to justify their personal opinions against the rest of the public does not change the minds of the rest of the public.

No, it's perfectly appropriate and well loved, which is why it is almost universally adopted.

In your opinion based on owning a shop?

TardianIn your opinion based on owning a shop?

Based on working in and directly with the general public in the tech industry for more than 3 decades. Since widescreen LCD displays became a thing in 2005/2006, the public has flocked to them and few ever look back. The exceptions seem to be making their opinions known here, trying to express those opinions as fact instead of simply expressing their preference and approval of the product focused on in this above article.

16:9 is well love for many reasons. 16:10 is also well loved for many similar reasons. 3:2 and 4:3 are seen by most as relics of a bygone era in electronics. Apple iPad seems to be the stand-out exception to that rule, but even with those devices people complain about the 4:3 aspect ratio.

3:2 is going to appeal only to a very specific(and small) market sector, generally those who primarily don't need or want a widescreen ratio.

lexluthermiesterBased on working in and directly with the general public in the tech industry for more than 3 decades. Since widescreen LCD displays became a thing in 2005/2006, the public has flocked to them and few ever look back. The exceptions seem to be making their opinions known here, trying to express those opinions as fact instead of simply expressing their preference and approval of the product focused on in this above article.

16:9 is well love for many reasons. 16:10 is also well loved for many similar reasons. 3:2 and 4:3 are seen by most as relics of a bygone era in electronics. Apple iPad seems to be the stand-out exception to that rule, but even with those devices people complain about the 4:3 aspect ratio.

3:2 is going to appeal only to a very specific(and small) market sector, generally those who primarily don't need or want a widescreen ratio.

Well, LCDs started at 5:4, then 16:10, then 16:9 came out and was kind of forced because it was about all you could get. It's not that its bad, 16:9 is just more suited to certain things. The PC is used for so many different tasks having 1 aspect ratio monitor just doesn't do it justice. At work where I have dual screens, I have one in portrait mode for reviewing word/pdf docs, the other in landscape for cad, and it's not well suited for that purpose, for that a 3:2 ratio would be way better. Odd thing is 3:2 (16:10.67) isn't far off 16:9 or 16:10, whereas 4:3 & 5:4 is a lot more square. ANSI D paper is 34"x22" so about 1.54 ratio, very close to the 1.5 of 3:2.

KhonjelWhy? 16:10 is a little taller than 16:9. And 3:2 is just further little taller than 16:10.

Hey you forgot the 5:4 ratio. My old 19" 1280x1024 viewsonic LCD isn't impressed................well it wouldn't be if it was still alive ;)

mechtechWell, LCDs started at 5:4, then 16:10, then 16:9 came out and was kind of forced because it was about all you could get. It's not that its bad, 16:9 is just more suited to certain things. The PC is used for so many different tasks having 1 aspect ratio monitor just doesn't do it justice. At work where I have dual screens, I have one in portrait mode for reviewing word/pdf docs, the other in landscape for cad, and it's not well suited for that purpose, for that a 3:2 ratio would be way better. Odd thing is 3:2 (16:10.67) isn't far off 16:9 or 16:10, whereas 4:3 & 5:4 is a lot more square. ANSI D paper is 34"x22" so about 1.54 ratio, very close to the 1.5 of 3:2.

You're right about the point of there being no "one-size-fits-all" aspect ratio screens. What one has to consider is overall use-case-scenarios. Most people do more video watching and game playing than anything else and they want that great experience. 16:9/16:10 widescreen ratio's fit more of those needs than anything else and have since they were introduced. They were instantly popular and have dominated display sales since.

I'm not saying that 3:2 is crap, it's just not ideal for general use. It's a specialty ratio. 16:9 fits most peoples needs a lot better.

21:9 user here and I do want one, give me that with IPS and FreeSync!

You can all say whatever about the "ideal" aspect ration monitor, but me since I've got my 34" 21:9 monitor, cannot go back to any other one...

Prima.VeraYou can all say whatever about the "ideal" aspect ration monitor, but me since I've got my 34" 21:9 monitor, cannot go back to any other one...

That's actually the point I was leaning into with what I was saying previously in the thread. What people want and prefer depends greatly on what use-case-scenario they find most important.