This was also true at times after Apple switched to Intel — for example, around the time Apple went SSD-only they were considerably cheaper _and_ faster than the competition who were either shipping HDDs or using slower low-end SSDs using HDD-optimized interfaces. The main confound has been that they weren't selling crappy but super cheap machines or large laptops, so you could find products in those classes which were faster (at twice the weight / half the battery life) or much cheaper and a lot of people would make comparisons for things which were really in different classes.
The difference now is that we've hit the point where it's easier to do those side-by-side comparisons because everyone is using SSDs, solid case designs with decent thermals, etc. so there isn't an obvious confound like weight or build quality to complicate the comparisons.
Doubtful. But they’ll make up for it by having it be on sale 24/7/365. I love my thinkpad but the buying process is awful.
I don't think that's how space works.
That said: diagonal size with an aspect ratio, e.g. “13" 3:2”, is fine.
A 16:10 screen is also wider than it is tall.
I'm not sure if I'm being trolled.
Number of usefully displayable lines is not defined by the x:y ratio.
Further, any half-way decent 16:9 monitor can, in a matter of moments, become a 9:16 monitor.
EDIT: I am aware we're talking about a laptop display, so orientation isn't flippable - but OTOH if you're trying to develop code on a 13" monitor at 1200 pixels high - your problem is not a ratio one.
If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.
These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.
One more thing about display sizes and aspect ratio:
Since display sizes are usually given by the length of the diagonal, those aspect ratios that are closer to a square (1:1) will have a bigger area for the same diagonal. With the same diagonal length, a 16:10 has a ~5% larger area than a 16:9, and a 4:3 has a ~12% larger area than the 16:9.
This is a nice tool for display size calculations: https://displaywars.com/
I've had 3 16:10 panels in the last 10 years and this was the case each time: 1920x1200 (vs 1920x1080), 2560x1600 (vs 2560x1440) and now a 3840x2400 (vs 3840x2160).
16:10 monitors were out of fashion for most of the last 10 years, but are making a comeback lately.. They were hard to find for a while but worth the effort imo.
Sure, that's true for the pixels (which might also be the more important part), but the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).
I was just clarifying that this is technically true but not really a noticeable difference on that axis.
That's hypothetical, they don't have the same diagonal in the real world. (e.g. 15.6" laptop displays are 16:9 while 16:10 ones are 16", and they have the same width after all http://www.displaywars.com/15,6-inch-16x9-vs-16-inch-16x10)
I don't know about you, but I don't read two pages of text at the same time.
16:10 in a vacuum is a useless metric. Real world stuff like actual resolution, screen dimensions, font sizes, scaling, etc. only make 16:10 ambiguously better.
It's so much more of a performance : sharpness sweet spot than 1080p - sorry, I can see pixel effects on a typical laptop - or 4k - which even desktops typically don't drive well.
I don't believe almost any of the HN audience does. The vertical crampiness of almost all the laptops is what makes a second monitor practically mandatory for me.
Depends on the use case. my wife (accountant) lives in Excel, and I set her up with two 21:9 monitors side by side (42:9 overall) and she loves that setup compared to the one she has in the office.
I'd expect laptop screens, having a different pixel density, to be manufactured on different lines so that having the same aspect ratio as some other size wouldn't count that much.
That's, like, your opinion, man.
Give me a high end mobile workstation with 4:3!
i would love to know if linux can shine on arm for desktop use out of the box
My fear is that, with windows becoming popular on ARM, this incentive will disappear and linux support on these machine will be weak.
Eh, honestly the baseline MacBook Air has often been pretty good value in the past relative to the competition.
It's a shame we're been wandering for nearly a decade, still trying and get back to what we already had.
4:3, please.
Tldr: our peripheral vision extends width wise more than it does height wise. That 4:3 was popular at all was an artificial of display technology not being able to take advantage of that. Now, of course for using a computer vs just watching movies or playing games, 4:3 makes a lot of sense, but I think we’d see 3:4 (portrait letter size) before 1:1.
This $1099 config better have 16GB Memory and 512GB by default. Otherwise it is a machine that cost about the same as MacBook Air M2, with lower Display Res, slower CPU and GPU and No Touch ID. This is perhaps for the first time in history Apple has a better "spec" machine for the same price. With the scale of iPhone and iPad, Apple is now at a point where the whole PC industry can no longer compete. And that is excluding things like speakers, trackpad, and thunderbolt port.
>A spokesperson told Ars Technica that its business customers are being more open to the aspect ratio.
Biggest lie ever. People want 16:10, but for years the industry shove 16:9 to your customer because it was the cheaper panel.
> Arm Cortex-X1 cores at up to 3 GHz
For Context, the Single Core GB5 Scores
Arm Cortex-X1 cores at up to 3 GHz = ~800
Apple M1 ( A14 Core+ ) = ~1700
For PC Laptop counterpart, a 800 GB5 score you are looking at something like AMD Ryzen 7 4700U if it was limited to run at ~10W. So not too bad. Apple is the outliner here.