Hacker News Reader

Comment by hrodriguez | Hacker News Reader

Lovely machine but I personally can't stomach the 16:9 aspect ratio. This usually limits my options when it comes to hardware. Wish Dell came out with similar but sporting a 3:2 or 16:10 screen (with Linux support).

View on HN

That was my (ir-)rationale in 2010, too, and I went with a 14" notebook then (HP). Big mistake, the 14"/16:10 displays available in mainstream machines are stuck in the past and absolute crap vs. modern 13"/16:9 displays (except for Apple's?).

As a hardcore terminal/vi person, I can assure you my 2016 XPS 13" works wonderfully for me. I had a chance to compare it next to a ThinkPad Carbon (I believe) in a retail shop that had both on display, and the ThinkPad's display, while in a lovely machine, doesn't hold a candle to that of the XPS.

(However! I'd like Lenovo to keep producing notebooks with good Pro keyboards for my next purchase)

What do you find problematic about the 16:9 aspect ratio?

I'm assuming it's that the web is a vertical medium not a horizontal one.

Low verticality and too much width, which sucks when reading long snippets of code which are 84 columns wide.

I wish more apps had an equivalent to Emacs' follow mode. It spreads narrow content across two (or more) columns.

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Fo...

I use a 21:9 screen and can definitely report that it does not suck. I can now stack 4 snippets of 84 column wide code across my screen instead of one.

Going column to column doesn't disorient you?

Not at all. If it's combined with a tiling window manager it is bliss!

Surface Book gives you the 3:2 screen, better GPU and a bit more battery. It's a bit heavier but I'm found the build quality to be outstanding.

I have a Surface Book and I will vouch for how awesome the 3:2 display is. I agree that 16:9 is a bit disappointing. It's the lingering dominion of HD televisions converging on computing. I am glad that some companies are re-asserting the unique needs of computing and adjusting monitors accordingly.

Macbooks (aside from the 11" Air) are all 16:10. I find it acceptable and for a strange reason feel cramped even on large 16:9 displays.

This hasn't been true since the Retina screens came out. One of the reasons I was sad to "upgrade" to the new MBP from my 2012 model was losing the 16:10 display.

2015 macbook pro retina here, which is 1920x1200 (or 1440x900). 1920/1200 = 1440x900 = 16/10 = 1.6...

Untrue - my MBPr has a bunch of display options, most of them are native 16:10. You may want to hold off on the upgrade for other reasons, but display ratio shouldn't be one of them.

You'd be surprised how quickly you get used to it. It's definitely a compromise, but you're trading vertical resolution for stability and compactness. Ever try using a 3:2 laptop on an airplane these days? It's not fun...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com