Why does every Monitor with a high resolution have such a wide format, like 16:9 or worse? As a developer i need more vertical than horizontal space. 9:16 is ok for coding but too small for anything else. I want a Monitor which is 2:3, 3:4 (rotated 3:2 or 4:3) or 1:1 and has at least 1920x2560. The better the resolution the more lines can i see at once. I can't make the text smaller than 10 pixel per line.

Do you guys have the same problem?

I just get those fancy monitor stands and rotate

@ilechuks73 The problem is not the rotation, the problem is the format. There shouldn't be too much difference between vertical and horizontal size.

Sounds like a Startup idea

I do not have that problem and tbh this is a perfect example of a first world problem.

Solution: Rotate the monitor and rotate your screen in your os accordingly.

@-ANGRY-STUDENT- It is a first world problem. On the other hand, i could improve my work and produce less bugs.

My screen is rotated, the problem is that 9:16 is ok for coding but not anything else i have to do too.

16:9 is wide? You must truly loathe 21:9 or 32:9 then.

Well, personally I feel like squarish monitors don't really match your view with binocular vision, which is naturally wider than it is tall (5:3 was the average "aspect ratio" of human vision, was it? That's 15:9, pretty close to 16:9 compared to 4:3 which is 12:9). And I'd rather have side-to-side scanning for that peripheral vision goodness when watching media or gaming.

I love my 34 inch 21:9 monitor - the ultrawide horizontal extent makes side to side immersion in games and movies absolutely amazing (it largely matches the wide aspect ratio of most cinematic content, which they do for the same reason of side to side vision being important), I can fit about three windows side by side comfortably (or one large in the middle and two small on the sides) and there's more than enough vertical extent that I don't feel like I can't see enough code at once.

For larger codebases the ability to stack windows horizontally is more valuable imo, so I'd rather take a large ultrawide. It's functionally the same thing as having a bunch of 4:3 monitors. I've never felt crippled by vertical extent as such. That said for a smaller display like my Mac I do appreciate the taller 16:10 for some extra vertical room.

I find that 16:9 is workable as long as you have at least 1440 vertical pixels and you use 100% scaling. It doesn't matter what the aspect ratio is, as long as there are enough vertical pixels. 1080 is too few.

@RememberMe I was talking about coding and do work, not about gaming or watching movies.

I use a 1200x1920 screen now, i can put 2 files side by side (When the columns are limited to about 115 per file). It is easier to read when the text isn't too wide. What do you think, why do we write and print most paper in portrait and not landscape orientation?

I like wide screen because I can have two “pages” of code side by side, but it is always a matter of personal preferences.

My monitor is 24" 16:10, that's nice, but it's an office monitor specifically.

Wide monitors are made for watching movies and for gaming. Plus, once the monitor gets larger and larger, you can't really use additional vertical space from an ergonomic POV because the absolute, physical height would become too large to make sense.

That's because we humans evolved in an open savannah environment where danger would not come from above or below, but from the sides - i.e. ground-bound predators such as lions.

I have seen high resolution 3:2 displays in laptops, and 1:1 1920x1920 desktop one. Take a look at Eizo FlexScan EV2730Q.

@rov3rand0m I can have 2 files side by side, left and right, on my 90° rotated monitor. You don't need a wide screen for that not even a 1:1. If you have 1024 pixel horizontal space you have enough for 2 files side by side