So, you prefer 15:10 over 16:10?16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
Yeah, and I also prefer reducing ratios.*So, you prefer 15:10 over 16:10?16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
Hell yeah. I'd kill for a couple good 24 or 27 inch 3:2 desktop monitors.16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
I would use them if they were available - I'd have to rank the common aspect ratios roughly:
3:2 - sadly rare in desktop displays - very balanced proportions
16:10
4:3
5:4
16:9
Well, yes. That's another way to say it.So, you prefer 15:10 over 16:10?16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
Fortunately, 16:10 displays never really went away, though they did tend to be on the pricier side of things.
Why doesn't it make sense? It's 1280x800 doubled. It's also what every 13" Retina Mac has used.2560x1600 on a 13" hardly makes sense. It'd be great on a 15" screen tho.
16:9 displays for computing devices need to just die. 16:10 or taller.
Yeah, but then we're stuck being docked at a desk. Outside of Macbook Pros, all laptops went 16:9 for a long while there. Three years ago I was hunting for a laptop to run Ubuntu on and could not find any with a 16:10 screen. That extra height is helpful not just for reading documents, but displaying code too.
Yes... T-series Thinkpads were always aimed at media consumption, weren't they?The new T-series laptops still have 16:9 displays, though that admittedly makes a bit more sense for laptops that offer 4K Dolby Vision display configurations, discrete graphics, and other specs and features oriented around media consumption.
Did enough people finally realize that 16:9 is just not a great aspect ratio for general computer work? Too narrow to really run two common "office" applications side by side, and ineffective for working with 16:9 content due to inflexible UIs. Speaking primarily about 1920x1080 and smaller panels, as they represent the vast majority of available screens.
The onslaught of 16:9 computer displays seemed to unfortunately coincide with other iffy trends like giant horizontal "ribbon" controls, and general tendency towards waste of screen real estate. Fortunately, 16:10 displays never really went away, though they did tend to be on the pricier side of things.
I wonder if they'll stop relying on Hotkey Features Integration which needs to be reinstalled every few months to unbreak it for whatever reason. I also wonder if they went back to socketed RAM. Other than those uncertainties it looks great.
Edit: Before anyone suggests not installing Hotkey Features Integration, you can't, because it breaks the regular hotkeys if it isn't installed. I don't install it for the star key no one uses, I install it because I have to to use the mute hotkey and others. Only volume up/down works without it.
Not on my E485, and I've also seen it required on an E570 and other models. I like my ThinkPad but just cause your T-series ThinkPad works with stock drivers doesn't mean all models get that attention. Hotkeys that don't work, mute/FnLock LEDs that don't work, the list could go on. I'm sure they could pay someone to debug and fix the issues but apparently that's too much to ask Lenovo for.I wonder if they'll stop relying on Hotkey Features Integration which needs to be reinstalled every few months to unbreak it for whatever reason. I also wonder if they went back to socketed RAM. Other than those uncertainties it looks great.
Edit: Before anyone suggests not installing Hotkey Features Integration, you can't, because it breaks the regular hotkeys if it isn't installed. I don't install it for the star key no one uses, I install it because I have to to use the mute hotkey and others. Only volume up/down works without it.
We don't install the hotkey apps on our T series lenovo's, and we have no problem with volume and brightness controls.
We use a stock windows image, then install apps like antivirus and office, but no Lenovo specific software.
Why doesn't it make sense? It's 1280x800 doubled. It's also what every 13" Retina Mac has used.2560x1600 on a 13" hardly makes sense. It'd be great on a 15" screen tho.
16:9 displays for computing devices need to just die. 16:10 or taller.
Fortunately, 16:10 displays never really went away, though they did tend to be on the pricier side of things.
Yeah, but then we're stuck being docked at a desk. Outside of Macbook Pros, all laptops went 16:9 for a long while there. Three years ago I was hunting for a laptop to run Ubuntu on and could not find any with a 16:10 screen. That extra height is helpful not just for reading documents, but displaying code too.
I'm rocking a U2410 over here. I would totally kill for a 27" 3840x2400 Q-LED IPS monitor to replace it.Using a Dell U2413 monitor for my desktop, set at 1920 x 1200. This is fantastic for most uses and is a good compromise for media. However it will be really difficult when it eventually needs replacing to find a reasonably priced 16 x 10 monitor. Here is hoping that manufacturers see sense and offer a choice in the future.
I wonder if they'll stop relying on Hotkey Features Integration which needs to be reinstalled every few months to unbreak it for whatever reason. I also wonder if they went back to socketed RAM. Other than those uncertainties it looks great.
Edit: Before anyone suggests not installing Hotkey Features Integration, you can't, because it breaks the regular hotkeys if it isn't installed. I don't install it for the star key no one uses, I install it because I have to to use the mute hotkey and others. Only volume up/down works without it.
So, you prefer 3:2 over 3.2:2 ?Yeah, and I also prefer reducing ratios.*So, you prefer 15:10 over 16:10?16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
*yes I get 16:10 isn't...
16:10 is cool, but you know what's really cool? 3:2.
I would use them if they were available - I'd have to rank the common aspect ratios roughly:
3:2 - sadly rare in desktop displays - very balanced proportions
16:10
4:3
5:4
16:9