We used to get plenty done with much less screen area, so there’s isn’t really a driving need, per-se. There’s nothing wrong with that workflow, even today.
That said, more pixels does enable some useful possibilities. IMO, the major difference comes down to using your peripheral vision (which wasn’t possible before) and less background tasking. Both converge on less cognitive load since you don’t need a mental map of what’s in the background (everything is “foreground” now). Instead, you can scan your immediate environment (screen real-estate, physical devices, etc) to find what you want. And I think it’s ultimately a matter of taste: some people will find that overwhelming instead of helpful or useful.
$0.02:
We used to get plenty done with much less screen area, so there’s isn’t really a driving need, per-se. There’s nothing wrong with that workflow, even today.
That said, more pixels does enable some useful possibilities. IMO, the major difference comes down to using your peripheral vision (which wasn’t possible before) and less background tasking. Both converge on less cognitive load since you don’t need a mental map of what’s in the background (everything is “foreground” now). Instead, you can scan your immediate environment (screen real-estate, physical devices, etc) to find what you want. And I think it’s ultimately a matter of taste: some people will find that overwhelming instead of helpful or useful.
deleted by creator
4:3 monitors were better than 16:9, objective fact, fight me
No argument from me. If nothing else, they were taller, which is better for many documents, web pages, etc.