4 ms·

16:10 is a much better ratio for working compared to 16:9.

by tenfingers 12y ago

news_to_me 12y ago
Can you explain? I'm interested why this is. Is there any research into this?
- Xorlev 12y ago
  Do you need research to appreciate vertical screen real-estate? I have two 16:10 monitors and love the extra space. I loved it enough that I then flipped one of my 16:10s into portrait. It's occasionally problematic in that pages I make sometimes pack the perfect amount in on my display, and get cut off on 16:9s.
  - Maome 12y ago
    I don't disagree with you but your argument seems to promote the idea that 4:3 would be even more ideal for the same screen size because it has more vertical screen real-estate. I don't think you answered the question at all.
    - scarhill 12y ago
      Obviously it's subjective, but I'd prefer a machine with a 4:3 display, because when I'm coding or reading I need vertical real estate much more than horizontal. I always assumed that the move to 16:9 for computers was driven mostly by either manufacturing economies of scale or the coolness factor of HDTV's.
      - pkamb 12y ago
        Lots of good info about ThinkPad's switch to 16:9 here: http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-ratio-change-again/ http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovob...
    - pkamb 12y ago
      ThinkPad loyalists would kill for a modern ThinkPad with a high-res 4:3 display. This is how they used to be sold, and the extra vertical screen real estate (16:12) was great for work. Lenovo's blog post at the time: http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-ratio-change-again/ http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovob... > PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt. As much as I would like it to be so, 4:3 is not coming back. Apple has since gone on to sell hundreds of millions of 4:3 iPads, so this argument doesn't hold much water. Where there's a will, there's a way. Further dilution of the ThinkPad from a pure "business" machine.
  - GhotiFish 12y ago
    Personally I've transitioned into splitting windows in half when I'm writing code or reading anything substantial. At 16:9 this is more than effective. I mean, the only thing I can see in favor of this is that 16:10 is better for working because it has more resolution, but that's not arguing for that aspect, only for more resolution. Would you take a screen that was 1728*1080? If not, then standardize on 16:9, get a higher resolution screen.
quadratini 12y ago
Going from 1920x1080 (16:9) to 1920x1200 (16:10) is better because you get more vertical estate. But you seem to suggest that 1728x1080 (16:10) is also better. Aspect ratio does not automatically make a resolution better lol.
- tenfingers 12y ago
  Aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution. 16:10 is much closer to the golden ratio, which allows to split the screen vertically in half and give two vertical screens with roughly the same ratio again. 16:10 has proportionally more vertical screen space, which is much more important given that most our documents/sources are oriented vertically. Not to mention wasted vertical space that cannot be removed (toolbars/menus/etc). Having more horizontal space is useless if you're mostly working/viewing with a single document at a time. If you physically rotate the screen, the 10:16 ratio is again better at fitting a piece of a A4 paper. The 16:9 ratio was driven by consumer demand, but no professional user I ever met liked it for working. There's a lot of unused horizontal space in just about every scenario. I personally stuck on 4:3 as long as I could, then switched to 16:10. Admittedly, 16:10 is "good enough" for me that I wouldn't necessarily go back to 4:3 now.

16:10 is a much better ratio for working compared to 16:9.

news_to_me 12y ago

Can you explain? I'm interested why this is. Is there any research into this?

Xorlev 12y ago
Do you need research to appreciate vertical screen real-estate? I have two 16:10 monitors and love the extra space. I loved it enough that I then flipped one of my 16:10s into portrait. It's occasionally problematic in that pages I make sometimes pack the perfect amount in on my display, and get cut off on 16:9s.
- Maome 12y ago
  I don't disagree with you but your argument seems to promote the idea that 4:3 would be even more ideal for the same screen size because it has more vertical screen real-estate. I don't think you answered the question at all.
  - scarhill 12y ago
    Obviously it's subjective, but I'd prefer a machine with a 4:3 display, because when I'm coding or reading I need vertical real estate much more than horizontal. I always assumed that the move to 16:9 for computers was driven mostly by either manufacturing economies of scale or the coolness factor of HDTV's.
    - pkamb 12y ago
      Lots of good info about ThinkPad's switch to 16:9 here: http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-ratio-change-again/ http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovob...
  - pkamb 12y ago
    ThinkPad loyalists would kill for a modern ThinkPad with a high-res 4:3 display. This is how they used to be sold, and the extra vertical screen real estate (16:12) was great for work. Lenovo's blog post at the time: http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovoblogs.com/insidethebox/2009/04/display-ratio-change-again/ http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovob... > PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt. As much as I would like it to be so, 4:3 is not coming back. Apple has since gone on to sell hundreds of millions of 4:3 iPads, so this argument doesn't hold much water. Where there's a will, there's a way. Further dilution of the ThinkPad from a pure "business" machine.
- GhotiFish 12y ago
  Personally I've transitioned into splitting windows in half when I'm writing code or reading anything substantial. At 16:9 this is more than effective. I mean, the only thing I can see in favor of this is that 16:10 is better for working because it has more resolution, but that's not arguing for that aspect, only for more resolution. Would you take a screen that was 1728*1080? If not, then standardize on 16:9, get a higher resolution screen.

quadratini 12y ago

Going from 1920x1080 (16:9) to 1920x1200 (16:10) is better because you get more vertical estate. But you seem to suggest that 1728x1080 (16:10) is also better. Aspect ratio does not automatically make a resolution better lol.

tenfingers 12y ago
Aspect ratio has nothing to do with resolution. 16:10 is much closer to the golden ratio, which allows to split the screen vertically in half and give two vertical screens with roughly the same ratio again. 16:10 has proportionally more vertical screen space, which is much more important given that most our documents/sources are oriented vertically. Not to mention wasted vertical space that cannot be removed (toolbars/menus/etc). Having more horizontal space is useless if you're mostly working/viewing with a single document at a time. If you physically rotate the screen, the 10:16 ratio is again better at fitting a piece of a A4 paper. The 16:9 ratio was driven by consumer demand, but no professional user I ever met liked it for working. There's a lot of unused horizontal space in just about every scenario. I personally stuck on 4:3 as long as I could, then switched to 16:10. Admittedly, 16:10 is "good enough" for me that I wouldn't necessarily go back to 4:3 now.