4 ms·
Just open two buffers side by side and it's almost like you have two 4:3 monitors. Isn't that better?
by nukeop 9y ago
Just open two buffers side by side and it's almost like you have two 4:3 monitors. Isn't that better?
- JohnStrangeII 9y agoNot if you're only working on one document at a time. Being distracted by some other stuff on the side is not always a benefit and many editors are surprisingly hard to set up to center documents on the screen while blending out anything on the sides.
- anfilt 9y agoIt depends on what your doing. I spend a lot of timing doing hardware design. So it can include VHDL for instance or I can be looking over PCB designs and various other layouts. If go to that Eizo's page you might see why a more square monitor is nice for CAD work not just long streams of text.
- oldcynic 9y agoLet's see. No it isn't. Not even close. A 4:3 aspect would give 1920x1440. You have 1920x1080. Where has the bottom quarter of the screen gone? It's not there. How can that possibly be better? I'd take 3:2 with high enough resolution as that's the equivalent of 2x 4:3 side by side in portrait. That would be a fair trade off. I'd still prefer a 4:3 laptop though!
- nukeop 9y agoWhat if I set my resolution to 3840x2160? Do you think it's about raw pixel count? Widescreen resolutions make most people more productive.
- oldcynic 9y agoIn that case I'd prefer 3840x2880. It's still missing 25% comparatively speaking. All the losses from browser header, footer, OS status bars, browser chrome or IDE widgets are at the top and bottom. Making that 16:9 letter box skinnier. I'd prefer more lines to be productive - to display the whole email without scrolling, or the whole method definition or half the article on a site etc. When I want to watch a full res HD movie I'll take black bars top and bottom.
- kuschku 9y agoThere are 8:3 monitors you could use, with 3840x1440 resolution.