If you are authoring 16:9 content, something like 16:10 allows for some UI controls to be displayed along with 16:9 video at native resolution during previews. When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better.

> When programming, more space is better. So for creators, 16:10 is unambiguously better.

I don't think that's how space works.

Given the same diagonal size, a more-square display has a greater total area. So a 16:10 13" display has more area than a 16:9.

We should stop using diagonal size metric for display. It's fine for TVs that have fixed aspect ratio, but confusing for multiple aspect ratio.

Agreed. Along with that the ambiguous 1080p, 1440p, etc. monikers. So much shorthand assumes the aspect ratio. Plenty of displays that are 21:9, 16:10, 3:2, etc.

That said: diagonal size with an aspect ratio, e.g. “13" 3:2”, is fine.

A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time.

> A 16:9 screen is wider than it is tall, so if you’re programming that means fewer lines of code visible at a time.

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.

16:10 is less wider, and thus gives you more vertical real estate.

If it helps you understand better 16:16 would be a perfect square.

That's not how 16:10 monitors work. Every one that I've seen has the same pixel width as a 16:9 screen but more vertical pixels. 2560x1600 vs 2560x1440 for example, or 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080.

These are standard panel sizes. No one is making a 1728x1080 panel to get to 16:10.

True, but if you're having two windows side by side, the wider 16:9 will give you more horizontal space to do so.

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/

In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.

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.

> In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.

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).

Sure but you said that when viewing documents side-by-side a 16:9 would give you more space, when really it's the same amount of pixels, and a trivial amount of physical difference (less than an inch on a 27" panel).

I was just clarifying that this is technically true but not really a noticeable difference on that axis.

> the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).

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)

>True, but if you're having two windows side by side, the wider 16:9 will give you more horizontal space to do so.

I don't know about you, but I don't read two pages of text at the same time.

You've never referenced documentation while writing or programming anything?

Alt+tab

A lot of people on this thread seem to think one way is better than the other, but I'm happy with the market being a mixture of devices. I prefer wider and shorter screens because I always have multiple things on screen at once and want to see them all - but I appreciate other people work differently.

I get why 16:10 is preferable (I'd like 4:3 even more, or even 1:1 on a desktop), what I don't understand is the incentive to push 16:9. Is it just because less pixels -> fewer expenses.

If you're authoring 16:9 content, you can display 1080p video at native resolution with UI controls on a 2560x1440 monitor, which is also 16:9.

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.

I have a MacBook Pro with 3456 × 2234 (around 16:10.5) resolution and it is perfect. I don't know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all. I can play videos just fine on this thing and the other 95% of the time it's a better resolution for doing things like coding and spreadsheets.

New MBPs are exactly 16:10 for full-screen, non-"notch-aware" apps - the screen is basically 16:10 below the notch, plus the two side areas. Rather neat solution imho.

Right, but I don't even notice the notch is so small. In most cases it feels like a 16:10.5 and I'm loving it.

On a related note, how much I wish 1440 / 1600 vertical had become dominant for PCs, rather than just "bigger number 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 know why people would want laptops at 16:9 at all.

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.

> 95% of the time it's a better resolution for doing things like coding and spreadsheets.

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.

When it's choice between something like a 16:10 1440x900 and a 1600x900 16:9 screen I'll pick the latter every time, more resolution is more resolution. A 4K screen would give you more "space" than your MBP offers.

It's easier to run LCD production lines if all the panels are produced on the line at the same aspect ratio. Given the prevalence of 16:9 video panels, this made it easier to produce 16:9 panels for laptops. (So, you're essentially correct.)

Does that apply across sizes?

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.

If the Pixel density differs ( a lot ) then yes it doesn't matter. But you still need economy of scale. This doesn't matter as much now because current LCD panel industry is essentially left over by Smartphone market. So you get a lot more flexibility than trying to print millions of the same 16:9 panels.

Do you have any sense what share of the LCD panel industry goes to phones?

No up to date number ( Because I no longer care as much ). Before pandemic and chip shortage the trajectory was OLED will be cheaper than LCD by 2022/ 2023. That is excluding other benefits like thinner display so you could fit larger battery and higher res ( spec ) numbers for better marketing. It is only a matter of time before LCD get completely squeezed out on Smartphone.