FWIW, the Soviet film director Sergei Eisenstein once gave a lecture outlining why square screens would be superior for cinema.
"Eisenstein playfully hyped the virtues of the "dynamic square," a screen that was exactly as high as it was wide. He did so in part because to him the square was modern, charged with productive machine force. This more purely cinematic screen was, according to Eisenstein, necessary for properly showcasing the energies, conflicts, and collisions germane to the moving image arts. It would also, at least in theory, be the most accommodating frame, capable of hosting images composed for planes that were either horizontal or vertical. Eisenstein proclaimed that previous industry standards (4:3), as well as contemporaneous calls for wider screens, were nostalgic, calling forth a dated viewing regime dictated by traditional art forms."
I watched IMAX 2D & 3D films on the biggest screen (600 m2) in Europe. *
It was impossible to see the whole screen, that was especially great with 3D movies (Space Station 3D, etc.). Also the 2D movie premiere of The Matrix Revolutions in IMAX DMR film was awesome.
So I would prefer movie theatre/TV/monitor screens with almost 1:1 or 4:3 ratio over 16:10 or 16:9.
As someone who mainly reads text (developer) I think widescreens are advantageous only for multimedia. As for the arguments about how human eyes are horizontal so our field of view is wide, that's true but only for peripheral vision - where everything is out-of-focus and not actually "visible" for e.g. reading something. Otherwise it's implying that humans can independently use one eye for the left side and one eye for the right, a skill that I don't know of anyone having (it's possible though, just not something that would be common.) I have a dual-monitor setup equivalent to a 5:2 aspect ratio and I still need to rotate my eyes or head horizontally to focus on the right part of the screens.
I don't know if a completely square monitor would be as well received as something at least slightly rectangular - 1920x1440 (4:3) might be a good compromise.
Widescreen in the office is really good and has a huge advantage over 4:3 in one key aspect - When you halve the horizontal resolution (8:10 or 8:9, though 8:10 is better at it) you quite closely match what two normal A4/letter documents, inside word editing applications, cover. So you can place two text documents side-by-side and they fit reasonably well.
This is incredibly useful to a whole load of office employees, who want to refer to two word docs, or 1 word doc and 1 PDF, etc. This is where widescreens shine (and 16:10 is even better than 16:9) and why I think they've excelled well in the workplace.
I work with PDFs and docs most of the time, and I find that the best setup for viewing an A4-size PDF is a 4:3 monitor rotated 90 degrees.
A 16:10 monitor rotated 90 degrees (what I have right now) is OK, but it wastes space at the top and bottom that the 4:3 monitor would be using to zoom the document more.
A horizontal 16:10 monitor with two PDF's, as you mention, is too small for me (at least with my current 24 inch monitors). Caring for the eyes is essential when you're looking at on-screen PDFs all the day. I would probably like that layout with a 30" monitor though... although maximizing windows in two monitors is still more comfortable than tiling in one big monitor.
I sympathize, but a 30-inch widescreen monitor is probably easier to get hold of nowadays than a smaller one in a taller form factor.
If you're using Windows, here's a neat feature I went years without knowing: Windows key + left arrow arranges the window to occupy the left half of your monitor, and similarly with right arrow.
My current work setup is a Macbook Pro on the left, with two vertical 1920x1080 monitors center and right. I'm a web developer, and it's very nice for pretty much everything.
The last few places I've been have been strong supporters of dual monitors, so I might be in a bit of a thought bubble on that, but also because monitors have gotten dirt cheap so why not. You can get dual IPS for the price of a fancy office chair.
When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.
I’m seriously considering buying an LG 34UM95 monitor¹ for precisely this reason. It’s so wide (34" screen, 21:9 aspect ratio, 3440x1440 resolution) that I could sensibly divide the screen into 3-4 full-height columns with different source files open in each for development work.
Currently I have a decent Dell 30" as my main screen, but at 2560x1600 resolution I wind up using it with a 2x2 split for coding, which roughly halves the number of lines I can see at once in a long file.
I’m a little sceptical about trying a 1920x1920 screen at that physical size for similar work, simply because I’d worry about what prolonged use would do to my neck with that much vertical movement being needed all the time.
I've just set up 3 different work areas consisting of laptops with external second monitors. I've settled on the configuration having the external monitor above the laptop display as being the most optimum. I find that I never need to move my neck to glance from one screen to the other, and only require a slight tilt at the waist to comfortably switch for longer periods. Contrast this to a side-by-side configuration, where it feels awkward to merely shift my eyes sideways, so I move my neck more. This in itself isn't so bad, until I need to focus on one screen that's off-center for prolonged periods, keeping my head in an awkward angle that doesn't seem healthy. Naturally, any configuration should still be augmented with regular stretching/activity breaks.
tl;dr: Vertical: Mostly eye movement. Horizontal: Lots of neck movement.
The ultrawide LG is quite nice, I trialed a coworker's for a week or two. Beautiful screen and great features, and using it was interesting. It was really nice to have four or more full-height source files tiled. However, from my typical centered vantage point, windows near the corners appeared skewed. (They weren't physically skewed of course, this was just because of the angle I was viewing). I found myself rolling my chair left and right so that I could more closely center myself in front of the current window, which wasn't a big deal, just something I noticed myself doing.
Given proper resources, I'd consider getting one. Just wanted to share my funny anecdote that it's so large, I rolled back and forth to take advantage of it all :)
However, from my typical centered vantage point, windows near the corners appeared skewed.
Presumably this is the advantage of the new curved screen version¹, though so far it’s considerably more expensive and it looks like at least here in the UK no-one has it available for immediate purchase.
I really wish that manufacturers would start making decent laptops with 4:3 screens.
They call these 16:9 displays widescreen. I call them shallowscreen: they are just don't have th evertical space for work. Why are my work tools made with screen form factors that are only suitable for watching movies?
And yes, I love my T43, which has a lovely display and keyboard even though it is almost 10 years old. Alas, it is just underpowered today.
> When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.
Last time I completely rebuilt my home setup I got monitors that can be rotated into portrait. I've not used the facility nearly as much as I thought I would, but then again I've not done much development since so that might be why.
Having one portrait and one landscape seems to be idea for web development: portrait for coding and landscape for output (as that is what the user's will likely have) & the things that don't fit properly in 1080 pixels wide.
You don't want to large a monitor in portrait for coding though: you'll be looking down a lot (or up+down if you sit with your head centred) which might be quite bad for posture. Beyond a certain size you are probably better off with a large monitor and some UI hack to artificially split it into columns.
I run two 1080p monitors in portrait on my desk at work. It's unreal how many interfaces assume you're widescreen: images are cut off abruptly after they scale to the width of the screen, horizontal scrollbars appear as default widths of panels in apps assume a widescreen monitor, and Excel spreadsheets flow off to the right. I'd love a 1920x1920 monitor.
1080 is absolutely not wide enough for today's software and web sites, but 1200 is mostly manageable. Anything that is too wide for 1200 either has too many columns as an attempt to use the absurd width of most monitors, or its lines of text are too long to be readable.
Another issue I had with a portrait monitor is, once you hit a certain size, you don't use the extra vertical real estate. You wind up moving your head up and down (mostly down) and you leave your head like that for a while sometimes. It's terrible for your back and neck, even standing.
> When I code, horizontal space is never at a premium. It's always vertical space I'm short on.
This sounds really weird to me. I absolutely relish the ability to have an editor and terminal side by side without either of them feeling "squeezed up". If you're using an IDE you can also get a lot more space for actual code even with those annoying side areas that IDEs tend to have.
With enough size and resolution, it really doesn't matter. After all, you can always use the space for something, right?
I recently upgrade to a 5k imac... and it's an absurd amount of space. I don't see the point in griping about aspect ratio when it's merely size and density that we really want.
Agreed. On a small notebook display I tend to work with one or a small few windows at a time, usually taking up most or all of the display area. Aspect ratio is highly relevant to my experience there and actually guides the aspect ratio of my windows.
But on a large desktop display, I end up with lots more windows at any one time, including lots of small windows that stay around and in one place for a long time: things like notes, feeds, things to come back to, etc. And, in that large space, I can size each window as large as I want, so I much more often can use a natural-feeling aspect ratio for its content. In other words, large displays are the only ones for me in which a "desktop metaphor" GUI actually feels and functions like a desktop. So, on a large display (aside from games/movies), I don't care too much about aspect ratio, I'll fill up the edges of whatever space I've got.
Agreed. I couldn't even tell you what my current wallpaper is because I'm never not working in full screen maximized windows.
My current fave monitor at home is my ca2008 Dell 2405 with all it's 1920x1200 glory. The Pixel is second, but a distant second because the screen is so small that if you actually use the full resolution you can't read a darn thing.
We have a 'horizontality' to our vision, not because our eyes are side-by-side, but because that's how we interact with the world; and how we grow up doing so[1]. We have a slightly narrower arc of vision vertically due to brow and cheek, but even so, the stuff we see 'up' and 'down' is low-density information.
What's happening in the sky or on the ceiling isn't particularly useful to us, and as long as we have reasonably sure footing, the same is true of the ground or floor. We spend our days interacting with things mostly in the horizontal visual plane. Things that we approach or that approach us mostly move in this plane as well.
Don't discount the value of screen space that's normally out in the nearer part of your peripheral vision, though. It's not as valuable as screenage that's normally in the centre of your vision, but it's still very useful (assuming it isn't too distorted by the viewing angle). You may have to move your eyes and maybe even slightly move your head to see what's out there clearly, but (I strongly assume - I'm not an expert) that kind of glancing should still be a lot more (yuck) "spatial" and less distracting than having to alt-tab or whatever to reveal the same information and then to hide it again. So in concrete terms, a 40" 16:9 4K monitor like http://www.tomshardware.com/news/philips-4k-bdm4065uc-monito... which has slightly greater vertical height than the 26.5" 1:1 1920×1920 screen as well as higher ppi ought to be preferable if price, horizontal desk space or whatever don't rule it out.
Unfortunately, OSes and other software tend to mess this up: in particular, the fact that those handy fullscreen commands actually fill the screen with the selected window or picture or video or whatever is no longer good news if some or all of the edges of your screen are far enough away from the comfortable centre area of your vision (see http://blog.codinghorror.com/the-large-display-paradox/ ). This was appropriate behaviour in the past, when both pixels and screen inches were limited and expensive and so it was safe to assume that the whole of the screen was well within the user's central viewing area—and in fact was probably covering much less of that central area than was at all ideal. Nowadays the user should be able to define a central fullscreen area that (possibly) doesn't take up the whole screen: then (by default etc.) fullscreened items should be expanded to the limits of the "fullscreen" area and no more. The rest of the screen can be filled with other information: maybe the other open windows pushed to the side in an OS X Exposé-like manner, or things like image metadata for a viewed image. The brightness of the outer area should be subdued to prevent it from distracting from the central image. (A practical use for whizzy translucency effects!). The information out in the "gutter" will be glanceable, but won't feel like it's impinging on your view of the fullscreened item (if it does, you didn't make the fullscreen area large enough).
I flat out love my 1920:1080 resolution - however, because of the IDE I use, I'm kind of tied to having panes down the sides of my code. A 4:3 sucks in this scenario, 1:1 would suck even more - if the resolution is not high enough. I would imagine that 1920:1920 would be awesome - vertical real estate is awesome for reading... but I don't want that at the cost of code navigation. My gut says that 1920:1920 would be sufficiently dense to get the best of both worlds.
I also use 16:10 only. The dominance of 16:9 is really getting annoying. It's harder and harder to get 16:10 monitors these days, especially anything with higher resolution than 1920x1200.
Like provemewrong pointed out, 2560x1440 is 16:9. I also much prefer 1920x1200 over 1920x1080, but I find it's not so much a preference for 16:10 over 16:9, but rather 1080 simply isn't enough vertical space. I think a 25" 2560x1440 might be pretty nice.
resolution size width x height ppi
2560x1440 25" 21.8" x 12.3" 117
1920x1200 24" 20.4" x 12.7" 94
1920x1080 24" 20.9" x 11.8" 92
Not so much of a stretch. We use Dells with a rotatable screen at our work place and about half of the people keep one vertical and one horizontal monitor.
Reading logs or browsing code is quite nice with the vertical screen, as is reading some vertical oriented pdf materials.
Cat videos are usually watched on the horizontal screen. :)
How many of your coworkers noticed the difference in image quality in portrait mode? The monitors are optimized for "landscape" and when you put them in "portrait" you get a very different color hue on each eye.
I found it so disturbing that I never used the monitors in portrait mode.
Not all panels have this problem. Of my monitors, only the one with the cheap TN panel has it (and it's so obvious it would drive me mad if I had to use it vertically). My screen with a PVA panel is fine.
It depends entirely on your panel and how well your operating system handles sub-pixel anti-aliasing. Some panels shift dramatically, and some operating systems do a terrible job and you'll notice all kinds of fringing.
Those panels from different lots have somewhat different colors anyway, even in the same orientation, and you can't tune them to be equal very easily, at least I gave up. They have pretty good viewing angles too. So it doesn't make it better or worse to turn either one 90 degrees.
Did you use a hardware calibrator? It shouldn't be hard to get a Dell monitor to a calibrated white point - they're not bad unless you got a TN panel model.
For productivity, ignoring the aesthetics of letterboxing for videos or games, aspect ratio comparisons really just come down to more resolution/desktop space is better. A 1920x1920 monitor is "squarer" than a 1920x1080 monitor, sure, but you can also just think of it as a 1920x1080 monitor with more space in the vertical axis. For productivity, making either axis longer or higher resolution is just better (obviously until you approach extremes which are physically unwieldy).
1920x1920 on a 26.5" panel is only 102 pixels per inch. That is a low pixel density for a modern monitor. It's the same density as a 1920x1080 21.5" panel - certainly usable, but you won't get the crisp text you'd have on a higher density display.
Of course, many monitors are worse. A 1920x1080 27" monitor is only 82 pixels per inch!
The monitor I'm buying next is probably the Dell UP2414Q. With 3840x2160 resolution on a 23.8" panel, it has 185 pixels per inch. It's expensive and you need a machine that can drive it properly, but that is a nice pixel density.
I'm near sighted. My eyeglass prescription is about -6.5. Using either windows or linux, anything over about 105 dpi is too small and I need to get closer to the monitor than what is acceptable from an ergonomics stand point.
If I need to use something with a higher dpi for any length of time, I have crank up the font size which causes some problems in some applications.
Right now I use a 19" 1280x1024 and a 20" 1600x1200. A monitor like this would be great.
> Using either windows or linux, anything over about 105 dpi is too small and I need to get closer to the monitor than what is acceptable from an ergonomics stand point.
I see this as a big failure of "modern" graphic systems. Having a 105 ppi should just mean more refined graphics, not smaller size of rendered objects.
The way a GUI appears on the screen should be a function of the screen size and the viewer distance, not a function of the screen ppi! We must get rid of all the layers of hacks that we have accumulated over the years (the reference 72 ppi, for example).
>I see this as a big failure of "modern" graphic systems.
Absolutely. This is one of the main reasons we were stuck with such incredibly shitty low res displays for so long. Up until windows vista, high DPI monitors were simply unusable in windows. Even now they have problems.
We still have a similar problem forcing us into having tiny screens. Windows and all the desktop environments that copied it are absolutely worthless at their primary function: managing windows. So people prefer two small monitors over one large monitor simply because the two small monitors allow an easy "make this take up half my screen space". Something that is of course trivially easy to implement, but most "modern" windowing systems don't care about at all.
For what it's worth, in GNOME 3 and Unity (Ubuntu) moving a window to the left or right border will make that window half of the screen. Same with top and bottom border. Moving a window to one of the corners resizes it to a quarter of the screen.
Windows 8.1 has keyboard shortcuts to make a window take half the screen, the full screen, etc. Hold down the Windows key and try the various arrow keys. You may be pleasantly surprised.
There are all sorts of other useful shortcuts that use the Windows key as a modifier, for example Windows+E to open a File Explorer window. Basically, try Windows+(every key) to see what it does.
I'm aware, but until the majority of people are using a system where basic window management exists, vendors have little incentive to sell double wide monitors because so few people would be willing to use them. So those of us who can make good use of them have to wait forever, just like we did for reasonable DPI LCDs.
Also, even in the newest windows it is still crippled. Applications can prevent themselves from being resized like that, and often things like games that you would want to run in borderless window mode can not be moved around using windows shortcut keys.
I always position all of my monitors at the same distance from my eyes. That's because I'm an old guy and my eyes can't focus to different distances easily like they used to. So I have a pair of single vision computer glasses - like a reading prescription, but adjusted for the approximately 20" between my eyes and the laptop screen (almost exactly the half-meter you mentioned).
Typically I have three displays in a row: a monitor on the left and two computers on the right, a MacBook Pro Retina and a ThinkPad W520 (145 ppi). Whichever computer I'm primarily working on that day goes in the middle and is connected to the external display.
I wouldn't be able to use a display 34" from my eyes unless I used a different pair of glasses, and then I'd have to switch glasses back and forth to look at the different screens! Unless I gave up using the laptop screens at all, but I'm not about to do that.
So with all my monitors at the same distance, what feels like a "retina" density is the same on all of them.
I wasn't disputing what you were saying - just pointing out that the idea of a lower pixel density on a monitor that's farther way doesn't work for me, because my eyes can't focus back and forth like that. All my monitors have to be at about the same distance.
If someone can easily focus at different distances, then of course that opens up more options.
That's not a bad idea, from both a cost and power standpoint. I wonder why nobody has done it?
Same thing with digital cameras. There is a good use case for a grey scale image sensor. Higher sensitivity, fewer artifacts, lower power. But, sadly, nobody has built an affordable one yet. Sure it's not a large market, but there are hundreds of cameras that are almost identical, why doesn't somebody dare to do something different?
There are various after-market places that will modify your camera to take black and white photos[0]. Considering how well loved black and white film is, and how many people running the industry have their roots in film, I am sure this idea has been looked at. However, the economics of camera making are really harsh. If you look at the numbers in the 'mirrorless' camera segment (a change from the SLR form-factor with wider appeal than a B&W-only camera), you can see how dangerous R&D spending can be.[1]
Searching DP Review, I see I can buy that camera for $7,950 on Amazon. More recently Leica introduced the Leica M Edition 60 rangefinder with interchangeable lenses. It's on Amazon for $895.
It's a somewhat apples-and-oranges comparison, but maybe that's the price you need to pay for such a niche camera.
Actually the Ed 60 costs even more than the Monochrom. You're not going to get a red dot on anything for less than a grand, though some of the ones that are rebadged Panasonics can be got cheap (though they're never worth the money).
We have a workstation with 4 EIZO monochrome medical monitors at work (to test radiology software ofc) and the resolution is astounding as is the 10-bit greyscale image. The price tag however, well, it's the greater than the sum of all the other monitors we have...
Why are these so expensive? You could get a top-of-the-line new 5k iMac for that greyscale 2048 x 2560 monitor. Presumably it's all the calibration and certification that goes in, but wow those are pricey.
The linked greyscale monitor above only had 8-bit greyscale, but describes it as "256 levels of gray out of a palette of 3826". Does that mean anything significant?
Yes, it means the monitor has an 8-bit host interface but each value on the range [0,256) is mapped to a range of levels [0,3826) that the panel can actually produce. The number seems weird, I'm not sure why it would be 3826. Maybe someone can explain.
I was discussing monitors with a colleague today, and we speculated that what we wanted was an e-ink monitor - not a laptop, just a monitor. Use a conventional flat panel for the main screen, but have one or two e-ink screens off to the side for documentation etc.
I would love to have an e-ink whiteboard type thing that I could just leave up all the time without worrying about power consumption. I'd say maybe the top third would be for calendar events/digital todo lists that sync automatically, and the bottom 2/3 would be a writing surface that would capture and sync its contents as well. It'd be amazing. I have a 10" Android tablet with Wacom digitizer which I do use a lot for brainstorming so that I have everything digitized, but I'd really like a bigger surface that I can leave on all the time.
Yeah, I thought about those. The OLPC is just too weird and outdated TBH, and e-paper devices (as much as I love them) are not reactive enough for active use like writing and editing. There's just no real option for now.
So what exactly is your goal? If you don't want anything that has advantages over a typical color LCD, then use driver settings to make it grayscale. Is that a 'fake' option?
sorry, a little late to respond, but no, that doesn't quite fit the bill. A native-monochrome LCD would actually have advantages over color LCDs because you have reduced bits per pixel, need less power per pixel, and actually increase the number of addressable pixels. E-paper displays are great for reading from but not good for interacting with in any active way. Pixel Qi is an interesting medium but I'm not sure it's quite there yet?
The SOL Vision monitor [1] is currently the only affordable screen in that regard (without hacking). It's specifically built for outdoor applications and has HDMI, VGA, and RCA/AV input, but unfortunately it’s limited to 1024 by 768 pixels.
It's an interesting idea, but I recently got a 5k iMac and now I can feel the jaggies on the 1080p displays I use at work cutting my eyeballs. The longer I use the Mac at home, the more I get used to it and the more annoying the screens at work become.
For sub-27" displays these days I think 4k is definitely the way to go. Affordable modern graphics cards are perfectly capable of driving such displays now and I think, or at least hope, that by the end of next year they will have become a pretty standard mainstream choice. A non-standard aspect ratio is all well and fine, but if it's still at standard dpi resolution it's just icing on a cake that's getting towards the end of it's shelf life.
"But after a few minutes, I realized that non-standard monitor sizes are most likely abundant in various industries, such as medical, when they are designed for a specific purpose and quality. So while a 1:1 monitor is something interesting to see in the consumer space, perhaps it might not be so new when considering industrial use scenarios."
Square is good. EIZO monitors are normally eye-wateringly expensive, at 5-10x the price of a budget panel as they are targeted at the medical industry.
FWIW -- square monitors have long been popular on financial trading floors. I think there's a preset on the Bloomberg terminal for this ratio, but it's been a while.
My eyes are positioned horizontally in my head, giving a "wide" field of view. So a widescreen monitor always feels more comfortable. Unless anyone has a single, perfectly round eye in the middle of their face, I don't know why you'd want a square monitor. :) That's my opinion, anyway!
Agreed, which is I enjoy my new 3440 x 1440 LG. I don't always use the whole width of the monitor, but I really enjoy spreading windows over more than the usual 2560 width.
Any reference materials can be on the very edges with a very slight turn of the head or a big eye swivel.
Since we're comparing two monitors with the same number of pixels, I'd probably pick 1440p, mainly because it's more ideal for watching fullscreen 16:9 videos, and because I'm more used to scanning left and right than up and down (which is probably an evolutionary result).
I've heard that the "aspect ratio" of humans' field of view is approximately 4:3, so if that's the goal, you'd want...2217x1662. 1:1 is actually closer to 4:3 than 16:9. My guess is that the tendency to scan left and right rather than up and down is the stronger argument for wider aspect ratios than the human field of view argument.
That makes sense only if you're trying to look at your entire monitor at once, rather than just a portion of it at a time and moving your eyes to context switch.
Docker for your eyeballs lets you virtualize most of the marquee or crawl (and a level view from a facing camera) for great ergonomic progress. Marking this as the day 3D sine-scrolling stylesheet aggregation (which you can wipe down or replay every show iteration) took over.
For modern wide monitors, I prefer 16:10, or 2560x1600. On my linux system at home I have two 1600x1200 monitors and I like that arrangement for coding. Having lots of vertical space for tall editor windows is a Good Thing. This square monitor would be interesting to try out.
Depends. Gaming, photo editing, anything simulating the eyes' field of view? 2560x1440. Writing, coding, reading, where I want narrow, high columns of information? The square screen.
I suppose it is highly use-case dependent if this is better than dual vertical 1920x1080 monitors. You essentially are choosing between having a bezel in the middle or losing 240 horizontal pixels. For having two things side-by-side the dual monitor setup is obvious win, so for coding etc I'd lean towards that
Why 1920? I would rather have 1440 (or 2160) as it would allow me to put it to the side of a 2K or 4K monitor and keep the same vertical resolution. Unless you're planning to put them in an over-under configuration (pretty rare in the home, at least) I don't see the point of this resolution.
We run three 1920 x 1200 monitors on all of our engineering workstations. In some cases I could see the value of running four but three is amazing for productivity. Going to three 1920 x 1920 monitors would be even better.
I'm pretty happy with a $250 4k 39" seiki and a dell u2410 1200x1920 (portrait) at work, but a square display would be great on a tabletop or otherwise in nonstandard positions.
I have 4 screens, 2 24" either side of a 27" and a 15" macbook pro below the 27. I find it much more comfortable to look left and right than i do looking down towards the macbook which is what i feel a square monitor would be like, more up and down movement as opposed to horizontal.
I've been looking for a 1:1 monitor for years before this; they're only made custom for military HUDs and such. I was so disappointed, especially in the people who called 5:4 and 4:3 "square" in response to forum posts asking about it.
Great to see that! I am only worried this will be ultra-expensive based on the assumption that people who actually want to do some real work on a computer (and not just play games or watch movies) do it for money, so they can pay the price.
I think the greatest push for 1:1 resolutions becoming popular would come from how similar it is to the usage on a phone.
With how popular mobile technologies are, and most consumers are usually consuming their apps in a vertical fashion.
I have an LG 34UM95-P which is a 34" 21:9 UltraWide with a resolution of 3440x1440. Once you get used to how wide the monitor is it works quite well. This replaced 2 x 1920x1440 29". It is on a mount on a standing desk.
OK, a square monitor. Maybe Apple will announce a round monitor, with a round GUI to go with it. Apple fans would be camping out in front of Apple retail outlets for the thing.
"Eisenstein playfully hyped the virtues of the "dynamic square," a screen that was exactly as high as it was wide. He did so in part because to him the square was modern, charged with productive machine force. This more purely cinematic screen was, according to Eisenstein, necessary for properly showcasing the energies, conflicts, and collisions germane to the moving image arts. It would also, at least in theory, be the most accommodating frame, capable of hosting images composed for planes that were either horizontal or vertical. Eisenstein proclaimed that previous industry standards (4:3), as well as contemporaneous calls for wider screens, were nostalgic, calling forth a dated viewing regime dictated by traditional art forms."
https://muse.jhu.edu/login?auth=0&type=summary&url=/journals...