My favorite resolution for the new year:

I am simply astonished that WUXGA (1920x1200) isn't on the list. Come on, people. Are we nerds here or not?

One that is expressed as x*y pixels, not as some obscure acronym.

Okay, I know 1920x1200 8:5 (16:10) displays "lost" once everyone was tricked into drooling over "HD picture size zomg!", but damnit, I really don't feel right buying a NEW, supposedly top-of-the-line monitor that has worse resolution than my laptop from eight or so years ago in college. Sadly, my choices are dwindling...

This is the right resolution, not this stupid 1920x1080.

I'd prefer it if we only used the term "resolution" to express "x pixels per unit length" or "x*y pixels per unit area."

Calling screen dimensions "resolution" was a mistake. It's high time this wrong was put right! You'd do it for Randolph Scott.

Just because quite a number of people are stuck using that doesn't make it a favorite.

The windows interface (90+% of the market you linux geeks) is highly dependent on vertical resolution. Task bar on the bottom eating ~100px, Ribbon/Tool bar eating another 100. I run 1920x1200 just to get 900 or so usable vertical pixels.

It makes me sad to see so much of the PC display market going to a 16:9 ratio as I do 85+% of my video watching and 100% of my high quality video watching on a non-pc monitor. They basically robbed you of 11% of your useful screen to save a few bucks and some people think it's a good thing. Henry Ford was right. Consumers are stupid.

It's because they use their monitors for things other than watching movies. For some, watching movies isn't even an important use of their computer. I know, hard to understand. Some people actually like to compose documents, program, surf the web and they are actually willing to put up with little black bars on the screen when watching videos if it will make the other tasks more productive. Weird.

Wow. Thanks.

Seriously: This mishmash of Xs, Ws, Qs, plusses and whatnot, all appended by -GA, is highly ridiculous. Who in all the fcking world wants to learn as many acronyms as there are combinations of width, height and color depth?

That's all well and good if all you use your computer for is media consumption, but I use my computer to do work. My workstation has a 1920x1200 monitor. My TV is 1920x1080. I don't want to use a TV for my monitor.

Marketing droids love them. Instead of learning something of informational value they can confuse their prey.

Well, because the 3.5" screen on my current (and now obsolete) phone has a resolution of 960x640, and I expect my next ~35" desk monitor and ~70" wall-mounted monitor to have a similar number of pixels-per-inch, that puts my expectation somewhere around 9600x6400 for the desk monitor, and 19200x12800 for the wall-mounted monitor. Oh, and don't forget to improve the color-depth too; might as well put that at 64-bits per pixel while we're at it. Bring on the 19K x 12K @ 64-bpp. !

Not many offers a 16:10 monitor, that's a problem, and even fewer offers 4:3 monitors. Monitors today seems to be dictated by TV size rather than being practical.