I learned to code in the era of 3:2 displays, and I don't miss them. I never code using the full width of my display. If your lines are that long you have issues. I also don't really need any more vertical space. On my 15" laptop and my 27" display I can see plenty of code at once. Having a few more lines on the top of bottom would not magically alleviate the need to scroll.
I'm all for people using the tools that suit them, but you seem to indicate that 3:2 is just flat out better and 16:9 has no advantages and it's just not the case. I like being able to do more things side by side.
It's personal preference like anything else. The reason 16:9 displays are now common is not because of movies. When they came on the scene most people said "Wow this is nice."
> The reason 16:9 displays are now common is not because of movies. When they came on the scene most people said "Wow this is nice."
What's so nice about them (besides of course for movies)? Most content consumed on computers is textual (websites?), so why would you have something wider than taller?
I just answered that in the comment you're replying to. Let me itemize it for you and add another one:
- I don't need more vertical space, it won't alleviate the need to scroll.
- I can put two nicely sized windows side by side and say, watch a scrolling log file while writing code or working in a terminal.
- My desk is wide, having wide monitors makes good use of the space available without needing as many monitors. If I had square monitors I would need 3 of them, instead I only need two 27" monitors to make good use of my desk space.
Again, my main point was not that I'm right and the other guy is wrong. My point is that it is personal preference and both are viable depending on what you prefer.
It's nice if you have a high resolution, large screen. But smaller screens with less resolution, 16:9 is not very usable.
Typically, a 16:9 screen doesn't have nearly as many vertical pixels as a 3:2 screen. Sure, a 27" screen fixes that (1440 pixels), but that just masks the problem.
I'm all for people using the tools that suit them, but you seem to indicate that 3:2 is just flat out better and 16:9 has no advantages and it's just not the case. I like being able to do more things side by side.
It's personal preference like anything else. The reason 16:9 displays are now common is not because of movies. When they came on the scene most people said "Wow this is nice."