No, if a 16:9 monitor is 1600x900, a 4:3 monitor with equivalent vertical resolution would be 1200x900.

I completely agree that 16:9 monitors with too low resolution are annoying. 1920x1080 really is the minimum for single screen setups and 2560x1440 is so much nicer. 3840x2160 is obviously even better. Once you get decent vertical resolution, the widescreen format makes sense.

And personally, I work with both. At home I have a single 27" 2560x1440 monitor, which is great for what I do at home, ie. web surfing, watching movies and playing games. At work I have a 20" 1600x1200 and a 22" 1680x1050, which works really well for monitoring, email/calendaring.

I could easily do all of my work tasks on a single 27" widescreen instead, but my dual monitor setup would be less than ideal for my home use.

So buy a 4K/UHD display and regard it as two 1920x2160 portrait-mode displays? There are plenty of options, even up to 39" before you get into TVs, and then the sky's the limit.

Aspect ratio fanaticism is nothing but neo-luddism.

Clearly you've never actually met the average European man. What do you think Europe is, some kind of continent-sized Castro District?

A 31.5" 4K/UHD 3840x2160 monitor hits ~140dpi and fits pretty well within your size constraints.

Don't think of them as widescreen displays. Think of them as two portrait-mode displays side-by-side with no annoying bezel.

For instance, with a 2560x1440 monitor, I have two 1280x1440 portrait-mode monitors built into one monitor. It's brilliant.

Your error was that you replaced your monitors with new ones of lesser vertical pixel count. You should have bought 1920x1200 or 2560x1440 instead. Never skimp on monitors, keyboards and mice. They will generally outlast every other PC component you buy.

Go 2560x1440, then. A 27" monitor with that resolution is right around 108dpi, which is pretty darn nice. Or go for something like Dell's 4K/UHD 27", that's 163dpi. or 140dpi if you go for a 31.5" model.

But who would want a 1600x1200 monitor when a 1920x1200 or even 2560x1440 monitor is cheaper these days?

Why? You can most likely get a 16:9 format monitor with more vertical resolution than your old 4:3 monitor, and you'll be getting more horizontal space to boot. It's almost like having a dual-monitor setup in one monitor, what's not to like?

Integrated Lights-Out (iLO) for HP servers was a godsend back when I managed a reasonably-sized server farm. Being able to completely re-install a whole rack of servers remotely was extremely nice when the server room was a 15 minute drive away and someone else had the IT department car.

It's no problem with 2560x1440, it's wide enough to fit 2 full-size documents with room to spare for toolbars etc. on a single monitor. Or putting it in other terms, I have two 1280x1400 monitors side by side with no annoying bezel in the middle.

1920x1080 is bargain bin crap for anything other than laptops these days. 2560x1440 is standard and 3840x2160 (or 2x 1920x2160, better than two of these Eizo monitors) is quickly gaining ground.

Errr no, that would actually be 2560x1440, the best aspect ratio of those possible options, with the most overall screen space. I should know, I have a 27" monitor with that resolution.

This 1:1 monitor from Eizo will only ever be relevant if it's significantly cheaper than a comparable-quality 4K/UHD monitor. 2160 versus 1920 vertical pixels, with a hell of a lot more horizontal space as a bonus.

Just sayin'.

Only if this monitor is cheaper than a similar-quality 4K/UHD monitor. UHD buys you 2160 vertical pixels compared to 1920 for this monitor, plus a hell of a lot more horizontal space to boot.

Well, there may be good news for you: http://www.anandtech.com/show/...

A 26.5" tallscreen 1920x1920 monitor sounds like just what you're wishing for :-)

You're arguing that you get less screen area for the same diagonal size, but while that's obviously true, it's a useless metric. It's like buying lightbulbs by wattage, when you should be buying them by lumens, color rendering index and color temperature.

Who cares that you have to get a 24" widescreen (1920x1200) to get the same vertical resolution as a 20" tallscreen (1600x1200)? You're still getting the vertical resolution you wanted, but with more space on the side, plus the 24" monitor is going to be significantly cheaper. Good high-resolution (2160 vertical pixels!) monitors are cheaper than ever, why complain about extra horizontal resolution?