Hacker News Reader

Comment by CharlesColeman | Hacker News Reader

That's awesome. 16:9 monitors only make sense for watching video, and are an abomination for pretty much any kind of work involving text.

I will be very happy when 4k 16:10 or 3:2 desktop monitors become widely available at an affordable price.

View on HN

Microsoft's Surface has the perfect aspect ratio for screens (3:2), imo. Wide screen devices just look wrong. 16:10 is fine, but it still isn't quite right (this is also what Apple uses.)

I very reluctantly gave up my Thinkpad Yoga 2 for a new Surfacebook instead of sticking with Lenovo but I have no regretted the switch yet. Any chance you can recommend a USB C hub that retains a USB-C plug on it that will do DisplayPort out? I have a nice Anker USB-C hub but it only gives me HDMI out and even though it retains a USB-C plug on it it downgrades it to USB 3.0.

There's two Lenovo docks that do this. One has an integrated GPU that I guess you can use if you have thunderbolt, one doesn't. Both provide plenty of displayport/hdmi out.

I think this was it: https://www.amazon.com/Lenovo-ThinkPad-Thunderbolt-40AN0135U...

I bought one to use with my HP work laptop at home.

I dont know if I understood your need correctly, but I am using Dell D6000 usb-c dock with two displayport-connected monitors.

Dock works perfectly, cannot say the same on other Dell docks (TB15 and some other).

Unfortunately no, and I'm surprised that Microsoft hasn't upgraded their dock to have USB-C ports. I have been holding out on upgrading my dock for this reason.

For anyone wondering, 3:2 is equal to 16:10.67

Agreed. I got very used to 16:10 when I bought my monitors as a teenager. A couple of years ago I finally decided the 19" screens weren't cutting it anymore after 10 years of service and wanted to move to 24". Spent some time looking for 16:10 but ended up with 16:9 unfortunately. 16:10 monitors were way less common and way more expensive. And 144hz 16:10 monitors just don't even seem to exist. 16:9 feels so much more cramped than it should given the screen size.

To make a screen with any ratios other than 16:9 seems to be very expensive nowadays though. I personally would rather a laptop be cheaper than to have a 16:10 or 3:2 monitor.

Then again, it would probably be only visible in greater margin for the manufacturer :/.

It's probably not that they're much more expensive to make, but there are much better economies of scale with a 16:9 ratio... the same panels work for TVs too

There isn't a market for 13-inch TVs... But mathematics support your reasoning about economies of scale: with constant, 13.3 inch diagonal, higher the aspect ratio, lower the screen area,thus less raw materials used, cheaper to produce.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com