It's disappointing that every new display I see is still stuck with the archaic 16:9 resolution.<p>Sure, humans may have more periphery side-to-side. This is great for television. But, when you read a book, I doubt you read it horizontally.<p>So, if we do a lot of text manipulation with our computers, why not use a <i>taller</i> aspect ratio, like 3:2 or 4:3?<p>It makes no sense why this display still has less resolution than some ThinkCentre monitors from the early 00's. It makes no sense why there's still that crap 1366x768 being sold now.<p>We went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 (fewer vertical pixels), from 1440x900 to 1600x900 (same vertical), from 1680x1050 to 1600x900 (far fewer vertical pixels), from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 (fewer), from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 (far fewer).<p>You could keep the vertical resolutions the same, and simply increase the width, but that would be more expensive to produce, and for the same cost, you'd get a more proportional 8:5 display, so why would you bother?<p>It's an extremely sad, sad, thing.