I'm of the opinion that the transition to widescreen was a step backwards, for general use — although they can be useful for viewing documents side-by-side. As far as I'm aware, the reason why they made the transition was economical — as diagonal measurements are the standard practice for monitors (which worked fine when they all had the same aspect ratio, but cannot provide a fair comparison with different aspect ratios), which they exploited to produce monitors 6.4% and then 11% smaller (in surface area) for the same nominal size. And now we have "ultra-widescreen" 64:27 (although marketed as "21:9") which IMO is just ridiculous; a 27″ diagonal, 2560×1440 display, like the one I have, is undoubtedly much superior to a 29″ diagonal, 2560×1080 display, being 3.4% larger (in actual surface area) and having 33% more pixels. For that matter, one with a 25″ diagonal and 4:3 aspect ratio (if it existed) might be better still. All of those would have a surface area close to 2,000cm² (why not make square centimetres the new standard measurement for monitor size?
).If I could get a monitor with (say) a 5120×3840 resolution and 0.1mm pixel pitch at a reasonable price, I'd just have to buy it. But I wouldn't hold my breath for it. (Will 4:3 aspect ratio ever come back into vogue? And when will they come up with an interconnect capable of carrying the required bandwidth on a single cable?)
