4 ms·

I _love_ that Microsoft seems to prefer 3:2 displays over 16:9/16:9 displays! If we get really lucky we might even see 4:3 displays again some day in the futur

I _love_ that Microsoft seems to prefer 3:2 displays over 16:9/16:9 displays! If we get really lucky we might even see 4:3 displays again some day in the future.

partiallypro 8y ago
4:3 displays are too boxy for mobility, I really think 3:2 should be the new standard, especially for tablets, it's just perfect.
- wilsonnb 8y ago
  I prefer 4:3 for tablets, but I'm glad we can all agree that 16:9 was a mistake. Even 16:10 would have been better as a standard.
  - tshannon 8y ago
    I haven no strong feelings personally one way or the other, so could you enlighten me as to why 16:9 is a mistake, or why 4:3 is preferred?
    - wilsonnb 8y ago
      16:9 doesn't offer enough vertical space compared to the horizontal space required. Basically, it's bad for small screens (like my 12 inch laptop) because you get almost no vertical space. Apple agrees with this and uses 16:10 on their laptops, which is slightly better. At least I think they do. 16:9 flipped the other way, like a smartphone, offers a lot of vertical space and almost no horizontal space. You basically can't have two apps next to each other because there isn't enough horizontal space. Basically, I want to have two things open next to each other on my screen. I can do this on 16:9 screens with a high enough resolution, but 3:2 or 4:3 with the same width offers me more height. Which I want. Less scrolling. I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. At the end of the day it's personal preference. I hope this rambling makes sense.
      - WorldMaker 8y ago
        > I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. 16:9 is the most common resolution of DVD/Blu-Ray and other movie formats. It's great for movies, and the people that hate letter-boxing black bars and mostly don't understand aspect ratios are always going to prefer 16:9. (Though ironically movies have plenty of non-16:9 widescreen content these days, so the complaints of letter-boxing by the people that hate letter-boxing and don't understand aspect ratios have started back up.) It's not a great reason to prefer to 16:9, but "doesn't have black bars when I watch Netflix videos" is a surprisingly common request.
        wilsonnb 8y ago
        It's not an unreasonable position to take. One of my favorite things about my iPads 4:3 screen is watching 4:3 content on it without black bars, so I get it.
      - yoodenvranx 8y ago
        > I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. It also depends on the size of the display. For a small 11" display I'd love to see a 4:3 (or even 1:1) screen to give me a lot of physical height for reading while keeping the device small. On a large 17" laptop I might actually be work with a 16:9 screen because the display is already tall enough to offer a lot of room for reading.
        wilsonnb 8y ago
        Yeah that's a good point. Resolution matters as well. My 27" 1440p monitor gives me more than enough height even though it's 16:9. Perhaps the same would be true of a small 1440p screen. I've never had a laptop with a higher resolution than 1080p so I wouldn't know.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

I _love_ that Microsoft seems to prefer 3:2 displays over 16:9/16:9 displays! If we get really lucky we might even see 4:3 displays again some day in the future.

partiallypro 8y ago

4:3 displays are too boxy for mobility, I really think 3:2 should be the new standard, especially for tablets, it's just perfect.

wilsonnb 8y ago
I prefer 4:3 for tablets, but I'm glad we can all agree that 16:9 was a mistake. Even 16:10 would have been better as a standard.
- tshannon 8y ago
  I haven no strong feelings personally one way or the other, so could you enlighten me as to why 16:9 is a mistake, or why 4:3 is preferred?
  - wilsonnb 8y ago
    16:9 doesn't offer enough vertical space compared to the horizontal space required. Basically, it's bad for small screens (like my 12 inch laptop) because you get almost no vertical space. Apple agrees with this and uses 16:10 on their laptops, which is slightly better. At least I think they do. 16:9 flipped the other way, like a smartphone, offers a lot of vertical space and almost no horizontal space. You basically can't have two apps next to each other because there isn't enough horizontal space. Basically, I want to have two things open next to each other on my screen. I can do this on 16:9 screens with a high enough resolution, but 3:2 or 4:3 with the same width offers me more height. Which I want. Less scrolling. I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. At the end of the day it's personal preference. I hope this rambling makes sense.
    - WorldMaker 8y ago
      > I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. 16:9 is the most common resolution of DVD/Blu-Ray and other movie formats. It's great for movies, and the people that hate letter-boxing black bars and mostly don't understand aspect ratios are always going to prefer 16:9. (Though ironically movies have plenty of non-16:9 widescreen content these days, so the complaints of letter-boxing by the people that hate letter-boxing and don't understand aspect ratios have started back up.) It's not a great reason to prefer to 16:9, but "doesn't have black bars when I watch Netflix videos" is a surprisingly common request.
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        It's not an unreasonable position to take. One of my favorite things about my iPads 4:3 screen is watching 4:3 content on it without black bars, so I get it.
    - yoodenvranx 8y ago
      > I'm sure there are people that prefer 16:9 though. It also depends on the size of the display. For a small 11" display I'd love to see a 4:3 (or even 1:1) screen to give me a lot of physical height for reading while keeping the device small. On a large 17" laptop I might actually be work with a 16:9 screen because the display is already tall enough to offer a lot of room for reading.
      - wilsonnb 8y ago
        Yeah that's a good point. Resolution matters as well. My 27" 1440p monitor gives me more than enough height even though it's 16:9. Perhaps the same would be true of a small 1440p screen. I've never had a laptop with a higher resolution than 1080p so I wouldn't know.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]