Do you need research to appreciate vertical screen real-estate? I have two 16:10 monitors and love the extra space. I loved it enough that I then flipped one of my 16:10s into portrait.
It's occasionally problematic in that pages I make sometimes pack the perfect amount in on my display, and get cut off on 16:9s.
I don't disagree with you but your argument seems to promote the idea that 4:3 would be even more ideal for the same screen size because it has more vertical screen real-estate. I don't think you answered the question at all.
ThinkPad loyalists would kill for a modern ThinkPad with a high-res 4:3 display. This is how they used to be sold, and the extra vertical screen real estate (16:12) was great for work.
> PC vendors have almost zero say in this change. We simply have to adapt. As much as I would like it to be so, 4:3 is not coming back.
Apple has since gone on to sell hundreds of millions of 4:3 iPads, so this argument doesn't hold much water. Where there's a will, there's a way. Further dilution of the ThinkPad from a pure "business" machine.
Obviously it's subjective, but I'd prefer a machine with a 4:3 display, because when I'm coding or reading I need vertical real estate much more than horizontal.
I always assumed that the move to 16:9 for computers was driven mostly by either manufacturing economies of scale or the coolness factor of HDTV's.
Personally I've transitioned into splitting windows in half when I'm writing code or reading anything substantial. At 16:9 this is more than effective.
I mean, the only thing I can see in favor of this is that 16:10 is better for working because it has more resolution, but that's not arguing for that aspect, only for more resolution.
Would you take a screen that was 1728*1080?
If not, then standardize on 16:9, get a higher resolution screen.
