[3pt14159]

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.

[olex]

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.

[3pt14159]

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.

[yodelshady]

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.

[NikolaNovak]

>> 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.

[slantyyz]

> 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.

[goosedragons]

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.