Interesting. For me the screen needs to be 16:9 or 16:10 to be even considered.

that's the same for me. I tend to have "two" windows open at most times and that works well for me on my 15" laptop (ancient by most HN standards). I've looked at the ultrawide and 4:3 screens and I'm good with the current "standard" form factor when I can't get to my 3 monitor setup at home.

> The first thing I see is a 16x9 screen, think "pass", and close the page.

I like 16x9. What do you want instead?

Not OP but I guess 4:3 or 3:2. Some people prefer those to widescreens, having more vertical space is better

MS Surface Books are 3:2 for example (2256 x 1504 on 13,5" / 2496 x 1664 on 15"), or some Thinkpad X1 models are 4:3 (probably just the Fold?). The Framework laptop is also 3:2 (2256 x 1504 on 13,5")

He probably meant 16:10.

Yes, I meant 16:10, though 3:2 is also good. 4:3 is really only for tablets or < 12" screens.

Looks like it’s been longer than I realized since I last paid attention to displays. That’s wonderful that alternatives to 16:9 are rising again.

I recently started using a 1280x1024 display in a 5:4 ratio for my retro PC. I really like it. It's more square than 4:3 and feels very utilitarian.

On the other hand, I still prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for modern displays.

Any thoughts on the LG DualUp [0]? It looks quite interesting for portrait mode work, but I've held off from purchasing due to the... unusual aspect ratio and the fact that it'd be rather difficult to use for watching video content.

[0]: https://www.lg.com/uk/monitors/lg-28mq780-b

It looks really interesting! I found using a different aspect ratio (5:4 in my recent case) changes how I view and interact with the computer. It just feels refreshing to use something different after years of 16:9 and 16:10. Your window layout might be different, which may or may not benefit your workflow.

I agree video content might look a little strange unless it was kept on either the top or bottom, and not full screened.

I can't imagine it makes the most sense unless you got two of them side-by-side--though that would depend on the nature of your work. I use a 43" 4k 16:9 monitor and don't use the full height, leaving part of the top and bottom edges empty. Moving your eyes/head that much vertically just doesn't seem very natural or ergonomic.

I'm not OP but 16:10 or 3:2 are great aspect ratios for laptops.

16:9 demands true full-screen for viewing 16:9 content. 16:10 leaves a little room for toolbars if you just want to maximize a window and look at something.

1080p too. Really hard for me to go back at this point.

There's hope that a 4k screen option might exist, but anything between 1080p and 4k will not look good on Linux at this size. Without fractional scaling or funny supersampling tricks, Linux only really looks good at 100% and 200% scaling.

Maybe in time that will change, but that's just how Linux is for now.

Fractional scaling is a 99% solved problem at least on KDE, even with Wayland it seems to work fine for me. Just a few apps are blurry which I don't use.

PopOs - System76 distro supports fractional scaling.

...the GNOME/Apple hacky way, that is rendering at an integer multiple and then downscaling as needed. It works, but it's not optimal, and won't ever be as sharp as it could be.

The Gnome/Apple way is also apps can opt out when they do their own scaling, such as browsers, and can just stream the output directly at 1:1.

The fix, unfortunately, is blame the hardware. Desktop monitors that don't approach standard DPIs shouldn't be still produced in the 2020s, 24" 1080p and 24" 4k are perfectly common and optimal for their intended uses.

And yes, I think 27" 1440p shouldn't exist... it isn't an integer multiple of 1080p (thus a poorly handled edge case of scaling rasterized media resources, ie, videos), but also, if you wish to maintain proper intended DPI scaling for ye average asset, 1440p needs to be 32".

I use xrandr --scale 0.8x0.8 and it seems alright to me.

My screen is 2560x1600 and I use Fractional Scaling (125%) on Fedora/Gnome with Wayland just fine.

Yah I don't get why these laptop manufactures keep shipping garbage screens. I got a 3:2 2160 x 1440, IPS screen on a $200 tablet a few months ago. My laptop has a 16:9 that looks worse, and has lower resolution despite the machine costing 6x as much.

So, please, its hard to call your product "premium" if its screen is worse than a bottom of the barrel tablet.

That sounds nice. What tablet is that? It's pretty sad that tablets seem to be elongating like phones did. Most of them are 16:10 these days.

I think it was this one: https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-11-tablet-intel-pentium-4gb-...

it was on sale for $199, or $299 with the keyboard.

https://www.bestbuy.com/site/hp-11-tablet-intel-pentium-4gb-...

But only that second link is still in stock.

>Yah I don't get why these laptop manufactures keep shipping garbage screens.

Because they're cheaper.

>My laptop has a 16:9 that looks worse, and has lower resolution despite the machine costing 6x as much.

Right, so your laptop mfgr spent less money on the screen, charged more money, and got a higher profit margin -> win! This lets their execs get bigger bonuses so they can buy better yachts. What's not to like here?

I'm a customer, and I like the 16x9 screen. Works great for my old school workflows and aging eyes. Of course, I don't know what I'm missing.