i hate 16:9 so much, still, i drive an oled phillips 42" 4k panel today and i dont think i will upgrade anytime soon.

back in 2008 i had a Viewsonic vx922 19" 5:4 at 1280 x 1024 and decided i wanted a bigger monitor, but couldnt afford the stupid price for a Dell UltraSharp 3008WFP, so i bought a Samsung T260N 26" 16:10 1920x1200, wich still was huge 17 years ago

i really miss those aspect ratios...

It's 4 years later. Does anyone care about 8K yet? Looks like no. I think content availability even in 4K is still quite spotty.

I use a 1600x1200 screen, and I never want to downgrade to 16:9. If the industry could pull their heads out of you-know-where for long enough to offer a resolution bump, that would at least feel like justice, considering that there was an NEC laptop with a 2048x1536 screen back in 2003. But in practical terms it is increasingly moot, because my vision just isn't getting any better.

The ultimate 'upgrade' would be if we could all agree to use 60fps as the minimum for video. Banish 24/25/30 fps forever. Low framerates suck.

Miss me with 8K for at least half a decade more. Seems like a waste of money to me since I'm barely maxing out my 4K screens yet - it's mostly 2D stuff, while most 3D things will still run at less than native res (usually 1080p for a nice integer scale, or even less if e.g. a game is old enough to not scale the UI properly). Looks almost as good but doesn't turn my GPU fans into jet engines. Switching to OLED was worthwhile though.

bakemono wrote on 2025-11-15, 15:13:

It's 4 years later. Does anyone care about 8K yet? Looks like no. I think content availability even in 4K is still quite spotty.

4 years later isn't a lot of time, 4K didn't take off in 4 years, and it was a easier sell than 8K.

Not saying 8K is necessarily the future of course, just saying we don't know that yet.

I've always been pretty old-school on video resolution.

Even before my events of 2019 (optic nerve damage = reduced vision), I never really felt a need to go even 4k - I find 1080P just fine, and even with my 80" home theater projector I still had to get really close to the screen to see "dots" - from any seat in the room, it was close enough to an actual theater that I saw no reason to change.

Part of it is growing up in 60s/70s having only a black&white "tube" television. ... and most everything "useful" I did on computers through my career was using an 80x24 (x25 with the PC) text screen.

Always liked living in rural areas ... until about 10 years ago, never had decent internet speed - so streaming/downloading "big" videos was painful (and gave no advantage as I didn't have/want high resolution playback)

I really wish there wer 16:10 1080p/1440p equivalent monitors.. That was such a sweet aspect ratio.

appiah4 wrote on 2025-11-17, 11:05:

I really wish there wer 16:10 1080p/1440p equivalent monitors.. That was such a sweet aspect ratio.

If you mean something that uses 1920x1200 (which is 16:10), those monitors are still being sold brand new today.

The ASUS ProArt PA248QV is one such example.

Joseph_Joestar wrote on 2025-11-17, 11:10:

appiah4 wrote on 2025-11-17, 11:05:

I really wish there wer 16:10 1080p/1440p equivalent monitors.. That was such a sweet aspect ratio.

If you mean something that uses 1920x1200 (which is 16:10), those monitors are still being sold brand new today.

The ASUS ProArt PA248QV is one such example.

I don't really see many in stock where I live at all, and they tend to be disproportionately pricier than 1080p stuff.. 🙁

appiah4 wrote on 2025-11-17, 11:49:

I don't really see many in stock where I live at all, and they tend to be disproportionately pricier than 1080p stuff.. 🙁

Those are mainly intended for professional use nowadays. Usually, they are purchased by people who care about color accuracy and/or want that nice 16:10 real estate for work related tasks.

That said, there are quite a few of us here who are using a ProArt for Win9x and WinXP retro gaming. It displays 1600x1200 perfectly centered, and has proper 4:3 scaling for 800x600 even over HDMI and DisplayPort. Just don't use it for DOS, since it can't scale 320x200, and it ends up being full screen. Also, I made a small driver modification which lets this monitor's color profile be installed even under Win95.

8k is just ... well , useless. for a pc anyway.

the hardware needed for a proper experience in 8k does not even exist. even 4k is a bit of a novelty for good frames in demanding games.

the sweet spot now is 1440p. good performance and great visuals.

1080p is .... well... outdated. at 24 inch plus , you can start counting the pixels on the screen. that is very backwords.

bitzu101 wrote on 2025-11-17, 12:48:

8k is just ... well , useless. for a pc anyway. […]
Show full quote

8k is just ... well , useless. for a pc anyway.

the hardware needed for a proper experience in 8k does not even exist. even 4k is a bit of a novelty for good frames in demanding games.

the sweet spot now is 1440p. good performance and great visuals.

1080p is .... well... outdated. at 24 inch plus , you can start counting the pixels on the screen. that is very backwords.

As I’ve noted elsewhere the reality is very very few monitors and small TVs are made that aren’t 1920x1080 due to the fact that mass production requires virtually every screen tv or monitor to use the same mask, dies and technology for cost reduction.

We live in a 4k universe when it comes to TVs but you rarely find anything on the shelf that is more than FHD at retail for computer monitors.
Try finding a 20-23” LCD at retail at all and they don’t exist because TVs aren’t sold in those sizes anymore unless you like Temu or Aliexpress.
Manufacturers should be selling the few small TVs left on the market as 1200 or 1440p to improve volume and margins on Computer monitors as they ALWAYS did years ago but instead they continue selling 720p screens into that space (<=32”) despite the fact that such a move saves under a $1 wholesale on components.

I wanted a dual purpose TV/Monitor that would fit my small desk and bought an ancient 23” TV that happens to support 1920x1200 resolution, it is the largest that fits and no modern TVs use commodity pc monitor panels.

My local Sam’s/Walmart between both stores offer exactly one screen that is higher than FHD and it isn’t by much… 32” 1080p ultra widescreen. My Sam’s have a moderate size FHD monitor on clearance $79, 1080p ultra wide $799

1200p/1440p/2160 basically don’t exist at retail and as stupid as it sounds 1200p screens cost more than 1440p and 1440p costs more than 4k unless you go ultra widescreen

Go in Best Buy and you do get 2x 4k and a single 1440p monitor on the shelf.

Unlike 10+ years ago just about every screen of a particular size are now all the same resolution, whereas new LCDs 2003-2012 were all sorts of random resolutions and specs.
this means all the local yokels when they sell their used pc or screen all sell ones of the same resolution unless the screen is 15+ years old.

Compared to when I was a kid there basically isn’t any choice in the pc retail market, unless you want to mail order a potentially sketchy off brand device that breaks directly after the warranty. Even motherboard selection is getting very sparse unless you buy used or strange Chinese offerings.

Unless you have deep pockets the destruction of the local pc and electronics retailers means an ever shrinking amount of choice when it comes to retail over the counter LCD monitors.

Try to buy a high resolution lcd that actually fits on a desk and there is basically nothing unless you count the single small 4k Apple display that is ancient and out of production or settle for a <17” 4k portable screen that is both too small and dim due to being a laptop offering .

rmay635703 wrote on 2025-11-17, 21:52:

As I’ve noted elsewhere the reality is very very few monitors and small TVs are made that aren’t 1920x1080 due to the fact that […]
Show full quote

bitzu101 wrote on 2025-11-17, 12:48:

8k is just ... well , useless. for a pc anyway. […]
Show full quote

8k is just ... well , useless. for a pc anyway.

the hardware needed for a proper experience in 8k does not even exist. even 4k is a bit of a novelty for good frames in demanding games.

the sweet spot now is 1440p. good performance and great visuals.

1080p is .... well... outdated. at 24 inch plus , you can start counting the pixels on the screen. that is very backwords.

As I’ve noted elsewhere the reality is very very few monitors and small TVs are made that aren’t 1920x1080 due to the fact that mass production requires virtually every screen tv or monitor to use the same mask, dies and technology for cost reduction.

We live in a 4k universe when it comes to TVs but you rarely find anything on the shelf that is more than FHD at retail for computer monitors.
Try finding a 20-23” LCD at retail at all and they don’t exist because TVs aren’t sold in those sizes anymore unless you like Temu or Aliexpress.
Manufacturers should be selling the few small TVs left on the market as 1200 or 1440p to improve volume and margins on Computer monitors as they ALWAYS did years ago but instead they continue selling 720p screens into that space (<=32”) despite the fact that such a move saves under a $1 wholesale on components.

I wanted a dual purpose TV/Monitor that would fit my small desk and bought an ancient 23” TV that happens to support 1920x1200 resolution, it is the largest that fits and no modern TVs use commodity pc monitor panels.

My local Sam’s/Walmart between both stores offer exactly one screen that is higher than FHD and it isn’t by much… 32” 1080p ultra widescreen. My Sam’s have a moderate size FHD monitor on clearance $79, 1080p ultra wide $799

1200p/1440p/2160 basically don’t exist at retail and as stupid as it sounds 1200p screens cost more than 1440p and 1440p costs more than 4k unless you go ultra widescreen

Go in Best Buy and you do get 2x 4k and a single 1440p monitor on the shelf.

Unlike 10+ years ago just about every screen of a particular size are now all the same resolution, whereas new LCDs 2003-2012 were all sorts of random resolutions and specs.
this means all the local yokels when they sell their used pc or screen all sell ones of the same resolution unless the screen is 15+ years old.

Compared to when I was a kid there basically isn’t any choice in the pc retail market, unless you want to mail order a potentially sketchy off brand device that breaks directly after the warranty. Even motherboard selection is getting very sparse unless you buy used or strange Chinese offerings.

Unless you have deep pockets the destruction of the local pc and electronics retailers means an ever shrinking amount of choice when it comes to retail over the counter LCD monitors.

Try to buy a high resolution lcd that actually fits on a desk and there is basically nothing unless you count the single small 4k Apple display that is ancient and out of production or settle for a <17” 4k portable screen that is both too small and dim due to being a laptop offering .

You bring up quite valid points about diminishing options.

Setting aside space constraints, while I do agree that 1080p on a 24" display, when used as a monitor, is not quite dense enough (91 PPI ), I also find it to be a bit too small in terms of desktop real-estate.

In the 4x3 era, 1600x1200 on a 20" was my preference. That had about 100PPI. I then switched to 1920x1200 on a 24" (93 PPI)

My current sweet spot is 27" at 1440p. It is both slightly denser (108 PPI) than 24" at 1080p (91 PPI) and offers just enough real-estate. It works well for image processing (for me) and is less load on the GPU than 4K for gaming.

While I do use a 4k 27" (163PPI) display for work, I feel the extra pixel density mostly goes to waste at that size as I have render text at larger size than default for legibility. I do get more sharply rendered text, but I don't really notice the difference that much versus 108 PPI. My late 40s eyesight is what it is.

I have yet to try a 4k 32" display (137 PPI). I might like it better than 1440p on a 27".

EDIT: Best Buy had very little choice on my last visit. My goto place is Canada Computers, one of the last brick and mortar computer chains in Canada (they do online too, though my last experience with them on that front was not that great, but that was quite possibly due to COVID era constraints).