4 ms·

> 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

by mroche 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.
globular-toast 5y ago
About ten years ago when widescreen was catching on I argued that it's the wrong shape for a computer monitor. I have no idea what the best shape is, but I argued that 4:3 was better. I had a single 5:4 panel myself. When it came time to upgrade it I was forced to go 16:9 as there were simply no affordable options out there. It looks like I was right, though. Hopefully we get some good 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 panels soon, and ones designed as monitors too, not TVs.
- KozmoNau7 5y ago
  As long as the vertical resolution is good, widescreen just means more space for side by side windows. I run my 4K 27" desktop monitor at 150% scaling, and usually snap two windows side by side, sometimes up to four windows with corner snapping. It's like having two portrait mode monitors side by side. On my laptop, the 1366x768 screen lacks the resolution to do this. Vertical resolution is the key, no matter the form factor.
  - globular-toast 5y ago
    There's a limit to the amount of useful horizontal space, though. I have two 16:9 monitors now and already the far extent of each screen is a bit too far away. If I added a third I'd have to move my chair over to be able to see it. On the other hand, there's plenty of available vertical space that these monitors can't take advantage of.
    - KozmoNau7 5y ago
      Sure, you only want to turn your head so far, and two 16:9 screens side-by-side or a single ultrawide monitor seems to be the practical limit, also in regards to desk space. Swivel/tilt/pivot and multi-monitor brackets make for great flexibility, though. I've seen setups with a 4K monitor flanked by two smaller vertically oriented screens. Or you could stack monitors on top of each other, or a combination. The biggest setup I've seen at a desk was six 4K monitors, arranged three wide and two tall. When you've got a lot of monitoring to show at once...
  - 5y ago
deaddodo 5y ago
I miss the old 4:3 laptops. The last one I had was an old Dell Vostro and it was great for software development, since I prefer vertical space for code than side-by-side windows/applications. Nowadays, I rarely use the full width except for watching full screen videos. Now, I run Linux on a Dell XPS 15 (3840x2400 with a 1.5 fractional HiDPI scale) and it’s acceptable, but still feels a little vertically cramped.

by mroche 5y ago

dima55 5y 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 5y 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 5y 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.

globular-toast 5y ago

About ten years ago when widescreen was catching on I argued that it's the wrong shape for a computer monitor. I have no idea what the best shape is, but I argued that 4:3 was better. I had a single 5:4 panel myself. When it came time to upgrade it I was forced to go 16:9 as there were simply no affordable options out there. It looks like I was right, though. Hopefully we get some good 3:2, 4:3 or 5:4 panels soon, and ones designed as monitors too, not TVs.

KozmoNau7 5y ago
As long as the vertical resolution is good, widescreen just means more space for side by side windows. I run my 4K 27" desktop monitor at 150% scaling, and usually snap two windows side by side, sometimes up to four windows with corner snapping. It's like having two portrait mode monitors side by side. On my laptop, the 1366x768 screen lacks the resolution to do this. Vertical resolution is the key, no matter the form factor.
- globular-toast 5y ago
  There's a limit to the amount of useful horizontal space, though. I have two 16:9 monitors now and already the far extent of each screen is a bit too far away. If I added a third I'd have to move my chair over to be able to see it. On the other hand, there's plenty of available vertical space that these monitors can't take advantage of.
  - KozmoNau7 5y ago
    Sure, you only want to turn your head so far, and two 16:9 screens side-by-side or a single ultrawide monitor seems to be the practical limit, also in regards to desk space. Swivel/tilt/pivot and multi-monitor brackets make for great flexibility, though. I've seen setups with a 4K monitor flanked by two smaller vertically oriented screens. Or you could stack monitors on top of each other, or a combination. The biggest setup I've seen at a desk was six 4K monitors, arranged three wide and two tall. When you've got a lot of monitoring to show at once...
- 5y ago

deaddodo 5y ago

I miss the old 4:3 laptops. The last one I had was an old Dell Vostro and it was great for software development, since I prefer vertical space for code than side-by-side windows/applications. Nowadays, I rarely use the full width except for watching full screen videos. Now, I run Linux on a Dell XPS 15 (3840x2400 with a 1.5 fractional HiDPI scale) and it’s acceptable, but still feels a little vertically cramped.