Mike Easter wrote:

> Here is a discussion of the aspect ratio dominance from 2003 to 2011

And another thing...

.... what restarted me on this aspect ratio business was an ad in my
local Fry's for a 20" wide screen monitor for $99.

Personally, I wouldn't want that shape for my screen real estate. Using
a computer desktop is not the same as watching a wide screen movie.

There has been a lot written lately about the changes in the Ubuntu
desktop, which all came about because of screens which were smaller and
also 'disproportionately' wide, so as a result the vertical real estate
becomes so 'valuable' (because there isn't enough of it) that everyone
is supposed to get used to moving everything around to accommodate these
monitors and desktops which don't have enough vertical dimension.

Back to the 20" widescreen. Not only is it the wrong shape for using a
computer instead of watching a widescreen movie, but also there is
significantly less screen real estate than older aspect ratios.

Here's a snip from a article on the subject:

// A 20-inch screen with a 4:3 aspect ratio has a display area of 192
square inches. In contrast, a 20-inch screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio
has a display area of only about 171 square inches, or almost 11 per
cent less space available for information. But this isn't why the TV
format displays are deficient. //

http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/...#ixzz1MwM1R5Wh
Time to ditch awful HD 1080p widescreens
Rant We need better monitor displays



--
Mike Easter