top | item 16073430

(no title)

saycheese | 8 years ago

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...

discuss

order

nkkollaw|8 years ago

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.

saycheese|8 years ago

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.

platinumrad|8 years ago

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

dr_zoidberg|8 years ago

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.

woodrowbarlow|8 years ago

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.

sempron64|8 years ago

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.