Hacker News Reader

Comment by Xorlev | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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.

Lots of good info about ThinkPad's switch to 16:9 here:

http://web.archive.org/web/20111030050311/http://www.lenovob...

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.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.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com