[ebbv]

Number pads are such a colossal waste of real estate. Let alone on a 13 inch laptop, the keys would have to be so small.

With regards to wanting a 4:3 display over a 16:9/10; with 1920x1080 resolution do you really need the 4:3? Are you really going to make your terminal/editing window full screen height? I use my rMBP in 1920x1200 and my terminals rarely need to go full screen height in order to see all the lines of code I need to see.

[Al-Khwarizmi]

I always make my terminals and windows full screen height in my 1600x1200 monitor and in my old 1920x1200 laptop. And on the desktop, I also have a vertical (1200x1600) monitor, typically used for documentation. Vertical space has always been the most important for reading text, that's why books typically come in portrait form...

[apetrovic]

So, if you have the same number of rows (say, 1200), you'd rather have 1600x1200 (4:3) than 1920x1200 (16:10) screen?

I hate 16:9 screens, just because manufacturers robbed me of 120 pixels on the screen (1920x1200 vs 1920x1080). 4:3 fascination was always strange to me - I never saw 4:3 laptop with more than 1200 pixel rows, and more pixels before my eyes is always better in my book.

[ebbv]

Books can't scroll. Terminal windows can.

The question is how much text needs to be on your screen at once. Sometimes you need a lot but I find most of the time I don't need 1200 pixels of height worth of text on my screen at once.