4:3 or 16:9 or 16:10? Which do you prefer?

[Ian S.]

With the Surface mini supposedly coming, what size do you prefer?

[Xahid]

don't know about the i/pads but usually i prefer 16:9, it provide better full screen resolution.

[Bamsebjørn]

On the desktop I really prefer 16:10.

Same with smaller tablets, because that probably means a resolution of 1280x800 instead of 1366x768... and 768 pixels vertically are a not enough.

 

On a large tablet I prefer 16:9 because of movies. On a tablet 1920x1080 makes sense.

[Thief000]

16:10 for all of them actually.

I prefer the extra vertical pixels on a tablet (any size) because I get extra room for video controls if I watch a 16:9 movie and don't overlay the image (much).

On the desktop it's for the same reason + the fact that I get extra breathing room with multiple monitors in vertical orientation when I code.

[blank]

I don't use a tablet mini or full size,

 

But for desktop...

 

I recently got a 21:9 monitor, and love it. Never going back

[MFH]

Thief000, on 20 May 2014 - 09:20, said:

16:10 for all of them actually.

I prefer the extra vertical pixels on a tablet (any size) because I get extra room for video controls if I watch a 16:9 movie and don't overlay the image (much).

On the desktop it's for the same reason + the fact that I get extra breathing room with multiple monitors in vertical orientation when I code.

This!

[Gary2MBz]

I would love 16:9 on an iPad and in general everywhere else it works best overall. Working in a post-production environment, we prefer strictly 16:9 formats and 4:3 for older content from decades back up til SD material now if said source is captured like that. 16:10 induces upper and lower letterboxing as a result of less width compared to the former.

 

On the other hand, 16:10 makes sense for computing because you still get more width than a 4x3 monitor and don't sacrifice too much on vertical space. For Word documents and Excel sheets, I would love it! Ideally, however, 16:9 fills a much bigger gap worldwide and I can accept arguments from both sides but they have their own place.

 

My $0000.02.

[tsupersonic]

16:9/16:10 on tablets always. Tablets to me are nothing more than media consumption devices. Without a proper keyboard or mouse, it's useless for any type of productivity. Kudos points if it has an active Wacom digitizer.

 

16:10 on desktops. I need that extra bit of vertical space! If I could, I'd do three 1920x1200 displays: middle one landscape, and the sides in portrait. All of them lining up perfectly in height, because I'm picky about stuff like that. :p

 

I recently got an iPad Air, and I intend to use it purely for media consumption. 4:3 SUCKS on this tablet. 

[+virtorio MVC]

I don't want to hold a tablet that's too wide, so for me, 4:3 for tablets and 16:9 or 16:10 for the Desktop.

[+Eternal Tempest MVC]

Native aspect ratio (no matter what it is) so no distortion or cropping. 

If I get to choose (say video game settings) Widescreen 16:9 (since my primary monitor is 16:9). 

[Noir Angel]

16:9, I find widescreen gaming just feels more "correct"... when used with a game that extends the FOV anyway

[Anibal P]

This day and age 16:9 is low end, 16:10 is preferable

 

Sadly can only afford a half decent 16:9 screen, but would go up if at all possible 

[tsupersonic]

I don't want to hold a tablet that's too wide, so for me, 4:3 for tablets and 16:9 or 16:10 for the Desktop.

Hmm  that would be determined by screen size and bezels. Take for instance the following two tablets dimensions:

 

Galaxy 10.1 Pro 2014 - 243.1 mm x 171.4 mm x 7.3 mm

iPad Air - 240 mm x 169.5 mm x 7.5 mm

 

The Galaxy 10.1 is 3 mm longer when you hold it in landscape mode, which can be accounted in the larger screen (10.1" vs 9.7" + bezels). Better off getting a smaller tablet if you don't like holding a tablet too wide. 

[Raa]

Another day another public poll...

 

I prefer the 16:10 resolutions - it gives me 1920x1200 which sits well for compatibility with older games.

 

Plus hey, there's more pixels, that's better according to Apple. :P

[Ian S.]

I really love my Surface's aspect ratio. :D

[+Asmodai MVC]

I prefer:

16:10 on tablets (of all sizes), laptops, and desktops.

16:9 on phones and of course TVs.

[+Warwagon MVC]

I think the ratio they chose  for the Surface 3 is closer to 4:3 than 16:9

[Excelsis]

I don't mind black bars on the side when watching 4:3 content, so why should I mind top/bottom black bars when watching 16:9 content? Not to mention you still get black bars in most widescreen movies because they're wider than 16:9.

 

16:10 it is for me.

[spy beef]

I prefer 3:2

[Ian S.]

I prefer 3:2

lol Surface Pro 3 FTW!

[primexx]

I think 16:10 is the best for smaller (non-desktop) screens, because it gives more vertical real estate while still maintaining a widescreen aspect ratio. 16:9 is fine once the monitor is large enough that there's enough vertical space anyway.

[vhane]

I use my tablets mostly for reading in portrait mode. I prefer 4:3. It makes a huge difference as the screen gets smaller and I find that I much prefer reading on my iPad Mini (4:3) than on my Nexus 7 (16:10, too cramped).

 

My ideal large screen computer monitor would also be 4:3. At sufficiently large size - I'm talking large enough that the screen spans from near desk level to above eye level, it would be hard to see content on the sides of the monitor. Imagine sitting in front of a 50" 16:10 monitor. You can't comfortably see content at the edges. Therefore, unless we go for a panoramic curved screen, we'll have to go multiple 4:3 monitors in order to comfortably see everything. Unfortunately no one makes large 4:3 computer monitors.

[Aergan]

I prefer 16:10, but have had to standardise on 16:9 due to cost/compatability/availability.

[PGHammer]

16:9/16:10 on tablets always. Tablets to me are nothing more than media consumption devices. Without a proper keyboard or mouse, it's useless for any type of productivity. Kudos points if it has an active Wacom digitizer.

 

16:10 on desktops. I need that extra bit of vertical space! If I could, I'd do three 1920x1200 displays: middle one landscape, and the sides in portrait. All of them lining up perfectly in height, because I'm picky about stuff like that. :p

 

I recently got an iPad Air, and I intend to use it purely for media consumption. 4:3 SUCKS on this tablet. 

I haven't heard of a tablet that does not support keyboards or pointing devices - and yes, that includes the current-generation iPads, despite that they are third-party.  I get the pickiness - however, the point you are trying to make is largely irrelevant.

 

I prefer 16:9 because that is what I am used to (on all my screens) - the only non-16:9/16:10 screens I see in even occasional use are on CRT TVs, of which none are in current use.  (All the TVs in current use in the house are 16:9 - with screen sizes ranging from 32" to 55"; my PC screen is 23", while Mom's is 24", and Mom's Android tablet is 7" - and it is also 16:10.)

 

The biggest problem with the iPads is that their A/R is different from the iPhone - and that is the platform most developers aim at; modal absolutism (on the part of developers) rears its head!  (It's not just an iOS problem - it's a problem on Android, too.)

[Andre S. Veteran]

16:10 is much better for productivity - I'm so starved for vertical space on 16:9 monitors, it's crazy. 1080 pixels just isn't that much. At least I always put the taskbar on the left side so at least I can use 100% of it, which isn't much. Too bad the industry pretty much standardized on 16:9, I understand that it's a better compromise for most content consumption, but I'd like to see more 16:10 monitors for creative purposes on the market.