That comment amuses me given that the original Mac was 3:2 back in 19843:2 seems to be the ratio of the future
oh it always was. 16:9 was a mistake. the market mindlessly shifted towards that. i miss my 3:2 thinkpad t60 from the 2000s... =/That comment amuses me given that the original Mac was 3:2 back in 1984![]()
There was a 3:2 thinkpad from the 2000s? T60 in 2006 was 4:3 except for the 15.4" model with 16:10 WSXGA+ display. I like 3:2 (15:10) but isn't different enough from 16:10 except maybe in a tablet form factor. And even then 4:3 is way nicer.oh it always was. 16:9 was a mistake. the market mindlessly shifted towards that. i miss my 3:2 thinkpad t60 from the 2000s... =/
4:3 is not 3:2. 4:3 is the ratio of the old TV. I don’t think it suits to computers now.oh my bad i meant 4:3
I like 3:2 the best as well. I’d like 4:3 even more. But it appears that 3:2 is either not flying with customers and/or is not economically viable as most laptop makers seem to be abandoning it.3:2 is the perfect aspect ratio for computers; coding, viewing websites, PDF's, Office Documents (maybe excluding spreadsheets). 16:9 only served to please the spreadsheet and media consumption users, and while 16:10 is a middle ground, 3:2 is far far far better IMO for most computer work. I only see 3 use cases for 16:9; media editing and viewing, and excel. Microsoft got it right with 3:2, and 16:10 isn't enough.
I think they are preferred for productivity, not because you can have multiple windows side by side but because you can see more of the document or spreadsheet that you're working on.3:2/4:3 are to narrow for any productivity with two vertical tool windows on left and right and work area in the middle - image editing, coding, video editing, etc.
Also videos have black bars.
That would be the blackberry passport!3:2 is so passé, it's all about 1:1