Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by dasKrokodil 1578 days ago
> In most cases that I've seen, a 16:10 vs 16:9 display has the same pixel width (the 16 part) part and more vertical pixels. So you were never actually sacrificing width as you claim.

Sure, that's true for the pixels (which might also be the more important part), but the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).
2 comments
sbarre 1578 days ago
Sure but you said that when viewing documents side-by-side a 16:9 would give you more space, when really it's the same amount of pixels, and a trivial amount of physical difference (less than an inch on a 27" panel).

I was just clarifying that this is technically true but not really a noticeable difference on that axis.

link
kasabali 1576 days ago
> the actual width (inches) is still bigger on a 16:9 (for the same diagonal).

That's hypothetical, they don't have the same diagonal in the real world. (e.g. 15.6" laptop displays are 16:9 while 16:10 ones are 16", and they have the same width after all http://www.displaywars.com/15,6-inch-16x9-vs-16-inch-16x10)

link