Hacker News Reader

Comment by nkkollaw | Hacker News Reader

Very cool, but as an owner of the Cube Thinker/i35--which has the same exact 3000x2000 3:2 aspect ratio display as the Surface Book (but costs $500)--I can't imagine why any developer would put up with a 16:9 display.

Specially if you have "developer" in your product name, why can't they figure out that 16:9 is not the best aspect ratio for everyone?

I write code the whole day, not watch movies. That huge extra vertical space _does_ make a difference.

View on HN

I learned to code in the era of 3:2 displays, and I don't miss them. I never code using the full width of my display. If your lines are that long you have issues. I also don't really need any more vertical space. On my 15" laptop and my 27" display I can see plenty of code at once. Having a few more lines on the top of bottom would not magically alleviate the need to scroll.

I'm all for people using the tools that suit them, but you seem to indicate that 3:2 is just flat out better and 16:9 has no advantages and it's just not the case. I like being able to do more things side by side.

It's personal preference like anything else. The reason 16:9 displays are now common is not because of movies. When they came on the scene most people said "Wow this is nice."

>I learned to code in the era of 3:2 displays

What era was that?

Ok, 4:3 displays. You get my point, more square displays than 16:9.

> The reason 16:9 displays are now common is not because of movies. When they came on the scene most people said "Wow this is nice."

What's so nice about them (besides of course for movies)? Most content consumed on computers is textual (websites?), so why would you have something wider than taller?

I just answered that in the comment you're replying to. Let me itemize it for you and add another one:

    - I don't need more vertical space, it won't alleviate the need to scroll.
    - I can put two nicely sized windows side by side and say, watch a scrolling log file while writing code or working in a terminal.
    - My desk is wide, having wide monitors makes good use of the space available without needing as many monitors. If I had square monitors I would need 3 of them, instead I only need two 27" monitors to make good use of my desk space.

Again, my main point was not that I'm right and the other guy is wrong. My point is that it is personal preference and both are viable depending on what you prefer.

Yes of course, it depends on your workflow.

I switch between apps and I often keep windows almost maximized.

I also only do web work, so I look at webpages all day.

It's nice if you have a high resolution, large screen. But smaller screens with less resolution, 16:9 is not very usable.

Typically, a 16:9 screen doesn't have nearly as many vertical pixels as a 3:2 screen. Sure, a 27" screen fixes that (1440 pixels), but that just masks the problem.

IMHO 16:9 is best for coding. You can have multiple files side by side. Or a terminal next to your editor. When Debugging: Watching variables, call stack, ... next to your code.

16:9 fine for desktop displays where its usually large diagonals, but on 15' or smaller is kinda lose too much vertical space.

Anyway is about personal choice and currently there isn't much choice for 3:2 laptops for reasonable price/specs

> but on 15' or smaller is kinda lose too much vertical space.

You could see it that way, but you could also say that you gain horizontal space ;)

I'm also in the 16:9 camp. Side-by-side is so much nicer than having to use a different workspace for something that won't fit next to the term editor is a pain. I've gotten rather good at (in vim) using tags and fuzzy searching, so the 'lost' vertical space doesn't really bother me much anymore.

Not seeing a major difference between 3:2 and 16:9 aspect ratio displays, what am I missing?

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/panasonic-lx100/z-lx10...

Huge difference.

If you're in a country where they sell the Surface Book, go take a look and you'll immediately notice that there is a _lot_ more vertical space.

Did you even look at the graphic I linked to? If so, there’s no need to “go look” at anything, since that graphic very clearly shows there’s not a major difference.

The graphic minimizes the apparent difference by splitting it between top and bottom and maintaining the same diagonal size. 3:2 gives 18% more vertical space in the same width https://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2013-02/lets-get-rid-...

If you're doing primarily vertical tasks (coding, web pages, etc.), the taller aspect ratio can be really helpful.

That said, I've mostly made my peace with 16:9. Write shorter functions (that's good anyway) and throw bars over to the side instead of top and bottom.

Aren't screen sizes typically based on that diagonal size (i.e. a 15" screen is a diagonal 15")? If so, doesn't that make parent's link more accurate?

Screen sizes are reported on the diagonal, but the makers are not constrained to maintain the same diagonal size with different apsect ratios. For instance, the pixel Chromebooks have 12.82" and 12.3" diagonal screens. I've never seen a 16:9 laptop with those sizes.

And specifically for an xps 13 device, where they trim excess bezels, etc., the keyboard width becomes the limiting factor.

The graphic you linked shows the different aspect ratios available to cameras from Panasonic's LX series. If there's "not a major a difference" then why is the LX series so highly regarded for this feature?

Whatever you say.

Here's a better image though, rather than a really weird bunch of lines for camera sensors: https://wolfcrow.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/43169aspectc...

It's about 20% more vertical space, as you can see (and you have to put together the top and bottom, which is a lot more impressive).

16:10 vs 16:9 is very noticeable for me at screen sizes below 15 inches and 3:2 is even better.

Just a bit more vertical space (a few? a dozen? more lines of code per screen) vs slightly wider screen (better for movies, and games maybe). It may be nitpicking, I actually grew used to 16:9 aspect ratios and don't really mind it.

i find 16:9 allows me to comfortably fit a text editor (with tree browser, minimap, and 100 columns of text) on the left and a terminal on the right. i need to shrink the text further than is comfortable for me if i want that layout on most 3:2 displays.

More vertical space = better for reading code. Still wide enough to split. I generally use 3 vertical splits (or sometimes more), so I'm personally not convinced, but that's the argument.

I love the display on my 9360. I use vim, and it allows me to comfortably have three windows open side by side, so I can view code from multiple files side by side easily. The high DPI allows me to use pretty small fonts without annoyance too.

That said, this is of course a very small computer, and I purchased it knowing I had an external monitor to use with it as well (same aspect ratio, for what it's worth). 13" is adequate but not ideal for me; I feel like this size machine is best paired with an external monitor back at your main desk, with the internal display used less frequently. If I did not have another monitor, I likely would have stepped up to the XPS 15 instead.

The aspect ratio rather reflects the width of the keyboard and the height of it plus the touchscreen beneath. It also makes a big difference on a plain where 13" 16:9 laptop is the largest thing you can fit on the table.

How do you like the Cube Thinker i35? I've been interested in those for a while, it's the only new laptop that's even remotely tempted me from my Lenovo X230T (which I love and highly recommend, particularly as a developer laptop.)

ratio != resolution != pixel density

it's not the ratio that gives you "extra space".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com