4 ms·

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 sc

by 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.