12 ms·

It looks nice. But if you ask me to describe what a "linux dream laptop" would have, a 16:10 screen would definitely be up there. What I'm looking for in a lap

It looks nice. But if you ask me to describe what a "linux dream laptop" would have, a 16:10 screen would definitely be up there. What I'm looking for in a laptop has also evolved, it's no longer (just) raw power but battery life, how noisy the fan is, how hot it gets under load, etc... Not sure how the intel chipset handles all this. I'll wait for more in-depth reviews.

throwawaysea 6y ago
Supposedly a 3:2 resolution screen is the new sweet spot, or so I’ve heard from reviewers on YouTube.
- dguaraglia 6y ago
  I've been using a Matebook X Pro (from Huawei) for the past three years and I have to agree: a 3:2 ratio (at 3000x2000 resolution) is amazing. I've been slowly looking around for a newer machine for work, but honestly most screens suck in comparison.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    The HP Spectre x360 14 may be what you’re looking for - it has a 3:2 aspect ratio and options for both an OLED screen (better color, worse battery life) or regular LCD screen (built in electronic privacy filter, better battery life). https://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/hp-spectre-x360-14-review/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/hp-spectre-x360...
    - dguaraglia 6y ago
      I've been pondering getting the 15 inch Spectre, I just can't get over the weird placement of the touchpad and the keyboard including a numeric pad. I know it's silly, but it's just... why make something so pretty then make it asymmetric? It's bizarre.
mroche 6y ago
> a 16:10 screen would definitely be up there. I’d take it a step further and suggest 3:2. Yes, more pixels (for matching X-dimension pixels) means more power draw, but you get a slightly increased height which is valuable real estate. And that small bump won’t be that much more noticeable when watching media full screen compared to 16:10. 4:3 offers much more, but it gets a bit silly and letterboxing would get pretty heavy, and if you want to HiDPI the display at 2x, that’s a ton more pixels compared to the sibling ratios. Examples: - 1920x1080: 2160 (16:9) - 1920x1200: 2400 (16:10) - 1920x1280: 2560 (3:2) - 1920x1440: 2880 (4:3) But I’m with you on all the other points.
- dima55 6y ago
  4:3 is what you want. That's what all laptops used prior to ~ 2002 or so. You only get "letterboxing" if you view content specifically designed for wide screens; i.e. movies. I don't do that often. Maybe 1:1 is what you really want, but I've never seen such a laptop :)
  - walrus01 6y ago
    For the longest time I was using a Thinkpad X41 with a 12.1" 1024x768 4:3 ratio screen as basically a glorified web browser, VNC client and ssh terminal, and it worked great
  - mroche 6y ago
    Have a few old IBM Thinkpads around the house (courteous of the parents) with 4:3. First things I ever tried Linux on. They’re nice, but they add some depth to the machine that I’m not the biggest fan of (tends to make the device a square). Obviously there are other factors at play, such as the dimensions of the screen in relation to other models choosing different resolution ratios. Been around a few Surface models, and the 3:2 is pretty nice. I chose to stick with the traditional 16:9 FHD resolution width marker as it’s arguably the most common width for online content in the consumer video space, most common display width, and makes downscaling from 16:9 UDH rather easy. I’d rather have some extra horizontal padding than have the video "squished" or "stretched"(not literally) to fit the display appropriately as it won’t be 1:1 pixels. Of course, you can always go the Apple/Microsoft way and choose a non-preexisting 16:9 based resolution. But as one who has previously dealt with a lot of video work, I much prefer getting those 1:1 visuals, no resizing needed. Personal preference, and yes, no such display exists to my knowledge in a consumer device. Most people don’t notice or care about this specific topic.
bscphil 6y ago
Personally I'd prefer something even wider, maybe 2:1, ideal for viewing two windows side-by-side (my normal working mode). I suspect 16:9 hits a sweet spot for a lot of people, and it's the default for most video (except films, which are usually wider).
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  This. Weird people want square again. I need windows to be side-by-side!
  - OJFord 6y ago
    What does a square screen have to do with that though? You need the side by side windows to be 1:2 too?
    - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
      More than one lane seems to be ideal. I'm assuming running 3:2 like in the early 2000s, everyone these days is running full screen and alt-tabbing constantly?? Give me as wide as they come!
      - OJFord 6y ago
        I like some things full-screen, like my browser, but vim (ok technically full-screen itself, but split) always 2-3, probably most other things 2 side by side. But I don't have a square monitor (I think it's 16:9) I don't see why that would be an improvement. If anything surely we want it wider for side by side use, so more 'lanes' can fit?
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    On my 5:4 screen I would regularly split it into 4: 2 up, 2 down. This was perfect. A lot of inferior window managers seem to restrict splitting to only in one axis, and even two only two windows. It's lame.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mhitza 6y ago
> battery life, how noisy the fan is, how hot it gets under load These are also very important factors for me as well. That's the reason I run my laptops with the cpu governor set to battery saving mode. Since for the work I do CPU is rarely the bottleneck, I get better battery life and I can never hear the fans.
- vips7L 6y ago
  I have this set on my thinkpad and the fans are still always going. I'm almost positive its the HDMI driver.
  - jpittis 6y ago
    I once plugged my Linux thinkpad into a projector via HDMI during a programming interview, and my laptop started smelling like it was burning. Never again!
cehrlich 6y ago
While we're making requests, I'd also love if they got rid of this bizarre keyboard layout where the up arrow key is to the left of the (tiny) right shift.
elgfare 6y ago
I had such trouble getting Ubuntu to run in 1920x1080 in my VM, which I found absolutely puzzling, but maybe this is because linux people find 16:9 passé.
andagainagain 6y ago
The problem with dream laptops is that dreams change all the time due to marketing and newness. 16:10 screen is better largely because some fancy models today come with 16:10. 5 years ago that same feature wouldn't have mattered. It's just weird. Just like 1080p vs 1440p. 2k vs 3k vs 4k. Just like the material of the chassis, the brightness of the screen, the weight, the stiffness, the depth of keytravel, the color scheme of the background, the placement of buttons on your window, using usb-c for charging... I mean, I could ramble for pages about ideal features. Some of those features are important to enjoying a laptop long into the future. But a lot of them are purely whatever the latest craze is. 16:10 screen imo is of the later category.
- monsieurbanana 6y ago
  You need to accept people have other needs than you do. Brightness of screen is important if you're not always in an optimally-lit environment. I work from home, I like moving around and going to work at cafes for 1-2 hours. My 250 nits thinkpad, for all the great things it has, can be a pain to use in some circumstances. Telling me I want 16:10 because the fanzy macs have it is belittling. I want 16:10 because I want to see more lines at once when coding on emacs. Depending on what I work on, I even split my windows horizontally. Even bundling together usb-c for charging with the color scheme of the background is... puzzling. Surely you can see how some people would like to have only one charger to carry around for all their electronic? If I had to guess, you have a dedicated desk and don't use any computer outside of it. That's a cool setup, but not everybody can or want to do that.

throwawaysea 6y ago

Supposedly a 3:2 resolution screen is the new sweet spot, or so I’ve heard from reviewers on YouTube.

dguaraglia 6y ago
I've been using a Matebook X Pro (from Huawei) for the past three years and I have to agree: a 3:2 ratio (at 3000x2000 resolution) is amazing. I've been slowly looking around for a newer machine for work, but honestly most screens suck in comparison.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  The HP Spectre x360 14 may be what you’re looking for - it has a 3:2 aspect ratio and options for both an OLED screen (better color, worse battery life) or regular LCD screen (built in electronic privacy filter, better battery life). https://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/hp-spectre-x360-14-review/ https://www.digitaltrends.com/laptop-reviews/hp-spectre-x360...
  - dguaraglia 6y ago
    I've been pondering getting the 15 inch Spectre, I just can't get over the weird placement of the touchpad and the keyboard including a numeric pad. I know it's silly, but it's just... why make something so pretty then make it asymmetric? It's bizarre.

mroche 6y ago

> a 16:10 screen would definitely be up there. I’d take it a step further and suggest 3:2. Yes, more pixels (for matching X-dimension pixels) means more power draw, but you get a slightly increased height which is valuable real estate. And that small bump won’t be that much more noticeable when watching media full screen compared to 16:10. 4:3 offers much more, but it gets a bit silly and letterboxing would get pretty heavy, and if you want to HiDPI the display at 2x, that’s a ton more pixels compared to the sibling ratios. Examples: - 1920x1080: 2160 (16:9) - 1920x1200: 2400 (16:10) - 1920x1280: 2560 (3:2) - 1920x1440: 2880 (4:3) But I’m with you on all the other points.

dima55 6y ago
4:3 is what you want. That's what all laptops used prior to ~ 2002 or so. You only get "letterboxing" if you view content specifically designed for wide screens; i.e. movies. I don't do that often. Maybe 1:1 is what you really want, but I've never seen such a laptop :)
- walrus01 6y ago
  For the longest time I was using a Thinkpad X41 with a 12.1" 1024x768 4:3 ratio screen as basically a glorified web browser, VNC client and ssh terminal, and it worked great
- mroche 6y ago
  Have a few old IBM Thinkpads around the house (courteous of the parents) with 4:3. First things I ever tried Linux on. They’re nice, but they add some depth to the machine that I’m not the biggest fan of (tends to make the device a square). Obviously there are other factors at play, such as the dimensions of the screen in relation to other models choosing different resolution ratios. Been around a few Surface models, and the 3:2 is pretty nice. I chose to stick with the traditional 16:9 FHD resolution width marker as it’s arguably the most common width for online content in the consumer video space, most common display width, and makes downscaling from 16:9 UDH rather easy. I’d rather have some extra horizontal padding than have the video "squished" or "stretched"(not literally) to fit the display appropriately as it won’t be 1:1 pixels. Of course, you can always go the Apple/Microsoft way and choose a non-preexisting 16:9 based resolution. But as one who has previously dealt with a lot of video work, I much prefer getting those 1:1 visuals, no resizing needed. Personal preference, and yes, no such display exists to my knowledge in a consumer device. Most people don’t notice or care about this specific topic.

bscphil 6y ago

Personally I'd prefer something even wider, maybe 2:1, ideal for viewing two windows side-by-side (my normal working mode). I suspect 16:9 hits a sweet spot for a lot of people, and it's the default for most video (except films, which are usually wider).

alfiedotwtf 6y ago
This. Weird people want square again. I need windows to be side-by-side!
- OJFord 6y ago
  What does a square screen have to do with that though? You need the side by side windows to be 1:2 too?
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    More than one lane seems to be ideal. I'm assuming running 3:2 like in the early 2000s, everyone these days is running full screen and alt-tabbing constantly?? Give me as wide as they come!
    - OJFord 6y ago
      I like some things full-screen, like my browser, but vim (ok technically full-screen itself, but split) always 2-3, probably most other things 2 side by side. But I don't have a square monitor (I think it's 16:9) I don't see why that would be an improvement. If anything surely we want it wider for side by side use, so more 'lanes' can fit?
- globular-toast 6y ago
  On my 5:4 screen I would regularly split it into 4: 2 up, 2 down. This was perfect. A lot of inferior window managers seem to restrict splitting to only in one axis, and even two only two windows. It's lame.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

mhitza 6y ago

> battery life, how noisy the fan is, how hot it gets under load These are also very important factors for me as well. That's the reason I run my laptops with the cpu governor set to battery saving mode. Since for the work I do CPU is rarely the bottleneck, I get better battery life and I can never hear the fans.

vips7L 6y ago
I have this set on my thinkpad and the fans are still always going. I'm almost positive its the HDMI driver.
- jpittis 6y ago
  I once plugged my Linux thinkpad into a projector via HDMI during a programming interview, and my laptop started smelling like it was burning. Never again!

cehrlich 6y ago

While we're making requests, I'd also love if they got rid of this bizarre keyboard layout where the up arrow key is to the left of the (tiny) right shift.

elgfare 6y ago

I had such trouble getting Ubuntu to run in 1920x1080 in my VM, which I found absolutely puzzling, but maybe this is because linux people find 16:9 passé.

andagainagain 6y ago

The problem with dream laptops is that dreams change all the time due to marketing and newness. 16:10 screen is better largely because some fancy models today come with 16:10. 5 years ago that same feature wouldn't have mattered. It's just weird. Just like 1080p vs 1440p. 2k vs 3k vs 4k. Just like the material of the chassis, the brightness of the screen, the weight, the stiffness, the depth of keytravel, the color scheme of the background, the placement of buttons on your window, using usb-c for charging... I mean, I could ramble for pages about ideal features. Some of those features are important to enjoying a laptop long into the future. But a lot of them are purely whatever the latest craze is. 16:10 screen imo is of the later category.

monsieurbanana 6y ago
You need to accept people have other needs than you do. Brightness of screen is important if you're not always in an optimally-lit environment. I work from home, I like moving around and going to work at cafes for 1-2 hours. My 250 nits thinkpad, for all the great things it has, can be a pain to use in some circumstances. Telling me I want 16:10 because the fanzy macs have it is belittling. I want 16:10 because I want to see more lines at once when coding on emacs. Depending on what I work on, I even split my windows horizontally. Even bundling together usb-c for charging with the color scheme of the background is... puzzling. Surely you can see how some people would like to have only one charger to carry around for all their electronic? If I had to guess, you have a dedicated desk and don't use any computer outside of it. That's a cool setup, but not everybody can or want to do that.