[deleted]
Professionals need our 4:3 screens
61–70 of 96 posts
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#62(Controversial) Corollary resulting from this 16:9 domination: the maximum length of a source code line should be increased. 80 characters seems to be not the best fit for modern IDE on 16:9 screens. (I hate that, but praying for a 16:10 monitor comeback did not work. Also, it is getting worse with hidpi monitors)
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#63My compromise to address the lack of 4:3 screens:
Laptop on the left. One monitor in normal orientation in the center. One monitor in portrait orientation on the right.
I still wish for more vertical landscape in the middle, but... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#644:3 and matte and a proper keyboard. These no longer exist because Apple and shiny.
If there would be a demand then it would exist (from Apple or other companies).
Well, there is the problem. If monitors and notebooks are sold with 16:9 only, then of course there is no "demand" for 4:3, because you don't sell any! This argumentation is scewed.
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#65Disagree. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro (or Surface Book Pro - I can never remember which because I find the naming scheme ridiculous and irritating but, basically, the most powerful variant)[1], which has a screen that's much closer to 4:3 than 16:9. I tend to like to have files open side by side. Not just code, but often documents, web pages, and sometimes spreadsheets. This does not work nearly as well on a 4:3 s…
For when not on the move: 21:9 curved 34" at 3440x1440 is perfect for Visual Studio. I have bought two of those for myself now; home and work (U3415W, X34). 21:9 is as if made for VS. There's even a bigger 38" 3840x1600 (the U3818DW) that I'd love to see. You're talking serious real estate you caon use with no silly scaling, ie 1:1 or 100%.
That sounds like a fantastic setup. I'll have to look into it because it would work great with my MBP.
Sadly, thanks to another bugbear of mine with the Surface Book, I'd need to carry the dock around with me rather than leaving it at the office if I wanted to do that at home.
This is because the Surface Book itself only has one mini display port connector - you need the dock if you want to connect two monitors.
Let me say it again: I do not recommend anyone buy a Surface Book (although ironically the author of the article would probably quite like its screen's aspect ratio).
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#66Disagree. I have a Microsoft Surface Pro (or Surface Book Pro - I can never remember which because I find the naming scheme ridiculous and irritating but, basically, the most powerful variant)[1], which has a screen that's much closer to 4:3 than 16:9. I tend to like to have files open side by side. Not just code, but often documents, web pages, and sometimes spreadsheets. This does not work nearly as well on a 4:3 s…
Is it a laptop with detachable screen? => Surface Book (after MacBook) Is it a tablet with a thin attachable keyboard? => Surface Pro
Ha - thanks. The first one.
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
Apple was one of the last holdouts. They were shipping matte and 4:3 laptops until relatively recently. Reflective screens are the biggest shame. They’re worse but they sell better. For a while 4:3 looked “old fashioned.” Turns out that a tall form factor works for phones, but thankfully most manufactutors relize that tablets should be 4:3 or close to it.
I thought they were among the very first to abandon matte and 4:3, what models are you thinking of?
I've bought two MBPs in recent years: in December 2011, and again in August 2015. The first time around you could definitely get the matte screen, although unfortunately only with an ugly grey bezel. Not so sure about 2015 though.
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
If there would be a demand then it would exist (from Apple or other companies).
There's a demand for a non-anemic Mac desktop that isn't a huge overpriced dead-end waste of money, but that doesn't exist.
I could say the same for the Macbook Pro: the current models are an absolute joke.
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#69(Controversial) Corollary resulting from this 16:9 domination: the maximum length of a source code line should be increased. 80 characters seems to be not the best fit for modern IDE on 16:9 screens. (I hate that, but praying for a 16:10 monitor comeback did not work. Also, it is getting worse with hidpi monitors)
Again, I can't help but disagree with this. The reason newspapers arrange text in narrow columns is because it's easier to read, particularly if you're scanning quickly: same with source code.
A better approach I've found is to have files open side by side. On my old 17-inch MBP I used to edit three source files side by side. I can just about get away with this on my 15-inch retina model, but find two works better.
My Surface Book. is a bugger for this because, for one thing, the screen is smaller at 13.5", and then you also just don't have the horizontal real estate without reducing the font size slightly
Re: Professionals need our 4:3 screens
#70Same! I hate the freaking wide screen madness. It's not just laptops though. There are not a ton of manufactures making LCDs with modern resolutions in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Also a lot them are quite expensive. Eizo makes 1:1 desktop monitor, I managed to get one used for a good price I love it! I would get a second if they did not cost so much. http://www.eizoglobal.com/products/flexscan/ev2730q/index.ht... Also 5:4 i…
2560x2048 would be awesome (they exist but they cost about 5-10 times what a 2560x1440 does.. http://www.ieiworld.co.uk/products/MMD_5201M-1323-459.html ). Two of those side by side would be perfect. I have dual 2560x1440's at work (24") and that's nice but the extra 608 height would be great for things like Chrome devtools etc.
"Two of those side by side would be perfect."
When used in a discussion regarding the desirableness of the aspect ratio 4:3, 1:1 etc, I find this statement quite amusing :)