16:9 or 4:3

[Archer]

There aren't any advantages to 4:3/5:4 resolutions. Our eyes are positioned in a wide-screen form factor; so we're more adept to see wide-screen :D

You really summed up my thoughts. Although I can see some use for taller screens when typing documents, but that only applies to computers, not TVs.

 

[Legobricks]

I have a 4:3 CRT and would never consider a 16:10 LCD, the latter of which I have used for a few years by the way so it's not a presumption.

The way I have my desktop and browser toolbars set out leaves me with a square of working space, which i think is perfect. Say if the forum rules were changed to allow for 150x130 avatars, I'd be able to show more of Nanako's hair but would feel like something is missing from the top and bottom... Hm. I do hope my monitor never breaks because these days it'll be hard finding a truly satisfactory replacement.

 

[Silver]

I'm a fan of my 16:10 (1440 x 900) resolution. Granted, I'd like bigger, the aspect ratio is quite nice.

 

[Synaesthesia]

16:9. I prefer Widescreen, it's just nicer. :3

 

[Roboboots]

Widescreen has definitely grown on me. It was odd when I switched monitors from a 4:3 to 16:9 but now I can't really go back.

 

[Camisado]

My MacBook and iMac G5 are widescreen, but our family PC (only three years old) and all the desktops at work have 4:3 screens. I constantly switch between them and I don't have any problems with either.

However I sometimes miss the height of the lovely 19" Xerox 4:3 monitor we have on our PC. =/

 

[Lucy Lu]

I much pefer wide-screen now because it makes everything seen bigger and more organized. I remember when I had a full-screen monitor it just make everything look squashed. I didn't mind it though because that was the monitor I had before it broke on me. And when I got a wide-screen I never look back.