[hrodriguez]

Lovely machine but I personally can't stomach the 16:9 aspect ratio. This usually limits my options when it comes to hardware. Wish Dell came out with similar but sporting a 3:2 or 16:10 screen (with Linux support).

[tannhaeuser]

That was my (ir-)rationale in 2010, too, and I went with a 14" notebook then (HP). Big mistake, the 14"/16:10 displays available in mainstream machines are stuck in the past and absolute crap vs. modern 13"/16:9 displays (except for Apple's?).

As a hardcore terminal/vi person, I can assure you my 2016 XPS 13" works wonderfully for me. I had a chance to compare it next to a ThinkPad Carbon (I believe) in a retail shop that had both on display, and the ThinkPad's display, while in a lovely machine, doesn't hold a candle to that of the XPS.

(However! I'd like Lenovo to keep producing notebooks with good Pro keyboards for my next purchase)

[mellamoyo]

What do you find problematic about the 16:9 aspect ratio?

[superplussed]

I'm assuming it's that the web is a vertical medium not a horizontal one.

[dijit]

Low verticality and too much width, which sucks when reading long snippets of code which are 84 columns wide.

[rpdillon]

I wish more apps had an equivalent to Emacs' follow mode. It spreads narrow content across two (or more) columns.

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/emacs/Fo...

[nightski]

I use a 21:9 screen and can definitely report that it does not suck. I can now stack 4 snippets of 84 column wide code across my screen instead of one.

[bluedino]

Going column to column doesn't disorient you?

[nightski]

Not at all. If it's combined with a tiling window manager it is bliss!

[vvanders]

Surface Book gives you the 3:2 screen, better GPU and a bit more battery. It's a bit heavier but I'm found the build quality to be outstanding.

[bhauer]

I have a Surface Book and I will vouch for how awesome the 3:2 display is. I agree that 16:9 is a bit disappointing. It's the lingering dominion of HD televisions converging on computing. I am glad that some companies are re-asserting the unique needs of computing and adjusting monitors accordingly.

[r00fus]

Macbooks (aside from the 11" Air) are all 16:10. I find it acceptable and for a strange reason feel cramped even on large 16:9 displays.

[yborg]

This hasn't been true since the Retina screens came out. One of the reasons I was sad to "upgrade" to the new MBP from my 2012 model was losing the 16:10 display.

[dylanh]

2015 macbook pro retina here, which is 1920x1200 (or 1440x900). 1920/1200 = 1440x900 = 16/10 = 1.6...

[r00fus]

Untrue - my MBPr has a bunch of display options, most of them are native 16:10. You may want to hold off on the upgrade for other reasons, but display ratio shouldn't be one of them.

[zzalpha]

You'd be surprised how quickly you get used to it. It's definitely a compromise, but you're trading vertical resolution for stability and compactness. Ever try using a 3:2 laptop on an airplane these days? It's not fun...