3 ms·
16:9 for a work machine is a bad choice, and the resolution is horrible.
by tokai 8y ago
16:9 for a work machine is a bad choice, and the resolution is horrible.
- floatboth 8y agoUnfortunately most things are 16:9. Some MacBooks are 16:10, and Surfaces are 3:2 which is really cool, but 16:9 still dominates :(
- tokai 8y agoTell me about it. I still rock my old cracked x220. Most new alternatives (that I'm willing to pay for) would give a much worse keyboard, in exchange for an only slightly better screen.
- robin_reala 8y agoAll MacBooks apart from the old (and sadly missed) 11" are 16:10.
- eropple 8y agoPeople say this, but it honestly doesn't bother me in a laptop. Longer and thinner is easier to carry in a backpack and if I'm actually working it'll be docked and with external monitors, one of which is rotated to 9:16.
- 5166cc9c39fa61 8y ago> 16:9 for a work machine is a bad choice, and the resolution is horrible. I found a way to turn 16:9 into an advantage: if you go for 70-character columns, you can get a 3-column display in a tiling WM or Emacs if your resolution is 1280 or more pixels horizontally (there are 5-pixel wide fonts out there, but none of them are very legible).