[randallsquared]

> I don't recall any mass adoption of 16:10 followed by a mass migration to 16:9 in the last decade, which is what you're stating happened.

I don't quite agree with what you're stating I'm stating. (I realize that this has gone on way longer than the original reply warranted, but...)

User teh_klev said that they were sad that 1080p "was becoming" the norm on medium sized panels, and that 1920x1200 wasn't becoming the norm, instead.

I replied that the transition to 1080p had already occurred, some time ago. I don't believe that either teh_klev or I implied that there was mass adoption of 1920x1200 (16:10), only that teh_klev would have preferred that there have been such a mass adoption, and I was suggesting that that preference (which I share, though I didn't mention it[1]) became moot last decade.

[1] though it turns out that if the screen is large enough and the resolution high enough, I no longer care about the precise aspect ratio...

[teh_klev]

Oh aye, I know the transition has happened for a while. I also realise why this happened (due to the 1080p/16:9 format being the standard in content delivery and consumer displays such as flat screen tellys). This makes it a marketing no brainer for box builders such as Dell and Apple to standardise on 16:9, the format and "1080p" branding is recognisable to consumers.

However, for those of us doing "serious" work where we need those extra 120 lines, finding a decent >=21" panel (or even 17" one in a laptop) is getting expensive/more difficult to find.

[randallsquared]

I agree. If you are open to panels above 21", but aren't fond of the 30Hz issue with 4K/UHD, I'm using QHD 27" panels that I find really nice.

Review: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/planar-pxl2790mw-review,...