4 ms·
Let'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.
by oldcynic 9y ago
Let'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.