Didenko Family

© 2003-2023 Vlad Didenko, Marina Didenko


The content rights are not available for sale or licensing. Any use of the content except by the website owners is prohibited, unless specified per-page otherwise, or agreed in writing otherwise.

This website is for personal photos and posts, for the benefit of family and friends. As such it has a minimal needed set of features. No backward compatibility with old browsers is considered.

Most photos are processed to match a personal perception at the time of capture, and some photos are processed creatively. No guarantees presented about photos resemblibling a reality in any sense. No guarantees presented that a technology, or a personal advice, or/and any information posted on the website is usefull or harmless for your environment.

Square display

Display ratiosWhen it comes to convenient display hardware I have always been perplexed by the absence of square displays.

When per pixel cost in the past was dis-proportionally high, companies would naturally try to maximize usability of one dimension while saving a buck on another. That leads to such inflexible solutions as rotating displays and ugly L-shaped dual display setups.

These days, when pixel density is high enough and Apple iMac 27" has resolution of 2560 by 1440 pixels at a very affordable price in the system, why would not one want a square display matching length of a modern 24-incher? Accidentally, a pixel count of 1920 by 1920 exactly matches that of the Apple’s 27" screen - both are 3,686,400 pixels.

Think about it. You would lose that annoying feeling that you need a different orientation when you need it most. When viewing documents, you would have extra vertical space for tool palettes, widgets, instant messenger, whatnot. You would have enough real estate for two documents side-by-side, just like on a landscape 24" display, only better. A square display may be less conducive to maximizing windows thus actually helping your work flow. And that clunky screen rotating hardware and software - oh, please, you won’t miss that, right?

I do photo. What is my primary show-off media? Correct, screen saver and slide shows. All my screens happen to be landscape these days and guess what? I rarely frame portrait images now. Even portraits. I would definitely think more flexible given a square display. Display is not a frame, it is a canvas. One can put either landscape or a portrait orientation object on a square canvas - be it an image or a software window.

I am not a manufacturing guy so I do not claim to know all the intricacies or potential problems of a square LCD matrix production. I also may not be a fan of a square display laptop. But I had a silly hope that the anticipated Apple’s iPad would be square. Because it is useful. And because it mitigates complexity and unnecessary choice.

And for that I would vote at any time.


 ∽   ⦾   ∽