3 ms·

I've read through this a few times and I'm still not sure what makes this specific for coders or how its different from other 4k monitors. Can someone explain

I've read through this a few times and I'm still not sure what makes this specific for coders or how its different from other 4k monitors. Can someone explain what makes this monitor better for the average coder?

sva_ 2y ago
3:2 aspect ratio
- an_ko 2y ago
  ...Why is that better for programming than other ratios?
  - sv123 2y ago
    Less vertical scrolling it seems.
  - staticautomatic 2y ago
    Vertical monitor orientation
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - refulgentis 2y ago
    For every unit of height, there is 1.5 units of width. A traditional monitor is 16:9: that means for every unit of height, there is 1.77 units of height. It sounds like a small difference, but it means a ~15% increase in height. ex. my Visual Studio Code would show 70 lines of code instead of 60. This is an especially good tradeoff for code, because we tradtional line wrap at ~80 characters, which leaves large swaths of width available.
    - hnbear 2y ago
      Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
      - refulgentis 2y ago
        Right on my cusp, I still remember salivating for one of those straight from the Jetsons 4:3 LCDs (1997? 9? Only 9/11, so I may have been seeing them late / out of context). First 16:9 was probably 2006...got the first ever MacBook Pro as my graduation gift It informed some conception I had of the iPad as a platonic ideal (first 4:3 monitor in years)
      - 6th 2y ago
        I use my Samsung SyncMaster 245B as my daily driver - it's almost old enough to drive!
      - tivert 2y ago
        > Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9. They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously. I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]). [1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a-thinner-bezel-144hz-ips-screen-and-improved-cooling/ https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9MF-E2US583SH/dp/B0C8W4N4TM https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...
  - tivert 2y ago
    > ...Why is that better for programming than other ratios? The wideness of 16:9 means those monitors have too little vertical real-estate.
cherioo 2y ago
It’s 3:2, which historically people said it’s “better” for coding because it allows more vertical space. Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.
kelnos 2y ago
The 3:2 aspect ratio gives you more vertical space than a 16:9 ratio or similar. The good-for-coders idea is that you can see more "pages" of code without scrolling, but also without meaningfully decreasing the length of lines you can see, since it's still plenty wide. The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.
hydrox24 2y ago
In theory, the following things: The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen. The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen. Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice. It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.
- jart 2y ago
  3:4 is a better ratio for reading and editing text. That's what Xerox chose for their Alto workstations.
  - saurik 2y ago
    This is probably what you mean, but I wasn't sure and then did the math: and if you take two 3:4s and put them side by side (as is being contemplated with 16:9 being split into two 8:9 panels) you get 6:4 aka 3:2 (so, this monitor). Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).
throwaway4good 2y ago
I have a 3/2 28” monitor - while it looks nice - the ratio really doesn’t make much of a difference.

sva_ 2y ago

3:2 aspect ratio

an_ko 2y ago
...Why is that better for programming than other ratios?
- sv123 2y ago
  Less vertical scrolling it seems.
- staticautomatic 2y ago
  Vertical monitor orientation
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- refulgentis 2y ago
  For every unit of height, there is 1.5 units of width. A traditional monitor is 16:9: that means for every unit of height, there is 1.77 units of height. It sounds like a small difference, but it means a ~15% increase in height. ex. my Visual Studio Code would show 70 lines of code instead of 60. This is an especially good tradeoff for code, because we tradtional line wrap at ~80 characters, which leaves large swaths of width available.
  - hnbear 2y ago
    Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - refulgentis 2y ago
      Right on my cusp, I still remember salivating for one of those straight from the Jetsons 4:3 LCDs (1997? 9? Only 9/11, so I may have been seeing them late / out of context). First 16:9 was probably 2006...got the first ever MacBook Pro as my graduation gift It informed some conception I had of the iPad as a platonic ideal (first 4:3 monitor in years)
    - 6th 2y ago
      I use my Samsung SyncMaster 245B as my daily driver - it's almost old enough to drive!
    - tivert 2y ago
      > Maybe I’m old, but traditionally monitors where 4:3 until mid to late 2000s when they shifted to 16:10 then 16:9. They were, but I recall 4:3 monitors lacking the width to comfortably accommodate things like IDE project views AND code simultaneously. I believe 16:10 was chose as a nice aspect ratio for productivity, but 16:9 was chosen for movies/TV, and economies of scale and cost reduction impulses meant they took over even in areas where they were a stupidly poor choice (observe all the laptops with massively fat bezels [1]). [1] For example: https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a-thinner-bezel-144hz-ips-screen-and-improved-cooling/ https://www.pcgamer.com/asus-new-rog-strix-laptops-deliver-a..., https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9MF-E2US583SH/dp/B0C8W4N4TM https://www.amazon.com/GIGABYTE-AORUS-1920x1080-i5-12500H-9M...
- tivert 2y ago
  > ...Why is that better for programming than other ratios? The wideness of 16:9 means those monitors have too little vertical real-estate.

cherioo 2y ago

It’s 3:2, which historically people said it’s “better” for coding because it allows more vertical space. Personally I find bigger monitor available today is more than enough vertically. Horizontal space is actually quite useful to be able to put things side by side.

kelnos 2y ago

The 3:2 aspect ratio gives you more vertical space than a 16:9 ratio or similar. The good-for-coders idea is that you can see more "pages" of code without scrolling, but also without meaningfully decreasing the length of lines you can see, since it's still plenty wide. The Framework 13" laptop has a 3:2 screen. After almost 2 years using it, I... kinda like it? I think I would agree that I can see more code per screen. But on the occasion when I'm using another laptop, with a more standard 16:9 or 16:10 screen, it feels more "normal" somehow.

hydrox24 2y ago

In theory, the following things: The 3:2 ratio suits reading and editing text, because our eyes have trouble following in lines of text that are too long (think about how a paperback page is shaped, or A4 or letter paper). The counter-argument is that 16:9 is actually better because it's functionally two 8:9 panels if you split the screen. The light on the back reduces eye-strain in dark environments by lighting a wall (if there is one) behind the screen. Less reveolutionary is automatic brightness adjustment and the dark/light controls, but they might be nice. It basically just folds into one package a couple of things that are good practice for text editing and reading.

jart 2y ago
3:4 is a better ratio for reading and editing text. That's what Xerox chose for their Alto workstations.
- saurik 2y ago
  This is probably what you mean, but I wasn't sure and then did the math: and if you take two 3:4s and put them side by side (as is being contemplated with 16:9 being split into two 8:9 panels) you get 6:4 aka 3:2 (so, this monitor). Frankly, though, while I probably agree for "reading", with my "coding" I'm very happy taking 16:10 (which is a pretty standard monitor size and I want to say is much more common than 16:9, at least on laptops) and splitting it into two 8:10s (which is itself a pretty familiar aspect ratio).

throwaway4good 2y ago

I have a 3/2 28” monitor - while it looks nice - the ratio really doesn’t make much of a difference.