I've been able to make the adjustment by buying something with a slightly larger display. A 13" 16:10 display is comparable to 14" 16:9. At 1080p/1200p you lose some vertical pixels and a very tiny amount of physical vertical length, but you gain horizontal pixels and length, along with potentially more ports.
This was my recent experience choosing between a new XPS 13 or a T14s amd. Side by side the screens weren't that different. Port selection, keyboard quality, and trackpoint availability were the tiebreakers in favor of the Thinkpad. (Didn't care much about the performance difference due to my light use case.)
I can't really stay productive on anything less than 15". Right now I'm currently enjoying this years lineup of 17" laptops whose body is basically what a 15" was some years ago. I do graphics and sound production aside from programming so I'm really enjoying the extreme screen-to-body ratios. Vapor chamber cooling is also a nice addition.
But the thing that really gets me is the 16:10 resolution, I could personally never go back after using it, it just feels correct (to me).
>I can't really stay productive on anything less than 15".
Agreed. Without a dock/external monitor 13" and 14" are really not the sizes one should focus on for productivity, except in short bursts. 16:10 really makes an impact on displays smaller than 17". It took serious justification for me to give up the XPS 13" 16:10 display in favor of a 16:9 14" laptop. I absolutely would not have chosen a 13" 16:9 display because of how big of a net loss it is.