4 ms·

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

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.
  - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
    I'm on bspwm, so I can split all I want. But split 3 lanes seems to be nice for my workflow right now. But a 3:2? Damn... how skinny are those windows everyone is using, or what fonts!
    - globular-toast 6y ago
      On 5:4 I would only have two lanes, but I could split vertically as well so I usually still had 3-4 windows at once. On 16:9 I find splitting into 3 lanes makes them slightly too narrow, but it's workable. As for fonts, I always make my text size as small as possible on every device I own (well, the ones primarily used by me at least).
      - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
        But doesn’t this make a vertical line right in front of you, making content outside of your central vision? I like my main windows to be right in front, and less important things to both sides of it - that way, I don’t have to constantly turn my head. Having a split under your nose feels like reading a book but putting the page you’re currently reading past your ears
        globular-toast 6y ago
        Hmm.. I guess, but it doesn't matter. With dual screens there is a split right in front of me. My chair swivels so I can adjust my body to make looking left or right comfortable. I've never really thought about it and don't think it's a problem. When I read a book I don't fold it back on itself, both pages are visible at once.
yoz-y 6y ago
The less-wide screens usually just get taller no? So it’s not like they are eating up the horizontal screen space.

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.
- alfiedotwtf 6y ago
  I'm on bspwm, so I can split all I want. But split 3 lanes seems to be nice for my workflow right now. But a 3:2? Damn... how skinny are those windows everyone is using, or what fonts!
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    On 5:4 I would only have two lanes, but I could split vertically as well so I usually still had 3-4 windows at once. On 16:9 I find splitting into 3 lanes makes them slightly too narrow, but it's workable. As for fonts, I always make my text size as small as possible on every device I own (well, the ones primarily used by me at least).
    - alfiedotwtf 6y ago
      But doesn’t this make a vertical line right in front of you, making content outside of your central vision? I like my main windows to be right in front, and less important things to both sides of it - that way, I don’t have to constantly turn my head. Having a split under your nose feels like reading a book but putting the page you’re currently reading past your ears
      - globular-toast 6y ago
        Hmm.. I guess, but it doesn't matter. With dual screens there is a split right in front of me. My chair swivels so I can adjust my body to make looking left or right comfortable. I've never really thought about it and don't think it's a problem. When I read a book I don't fold it back on itself, both pages are visible at once.

yoz-y 6y ago

The less-wide screens usually just get taller no? So it’s not like they are eating up the horizontal screen space.