Obviously manufacturers haven't been eradicating useful screen ratios for no reason, I've just never seen anyone publicly admit to being the cause. Would you also like to take the blame for glossy screens, chicklet keyboards, and non-replaceable batteries?
> Obviously manufacturers haven't been eradicating useful screen ratios for no reason
For me 16:9/10 is way more "useful" than 3:2/4:3 ever was (had that for ages, wouldn't go back). I love being able to have two different things side-by-side, e.g. an editor and a terminal, on a 13" screen, at a font size I can still read well. I definitely wouldn't buy a square-ish laptop screen.
And I'll take anything that's more square than 16:9 personally.
16:9 is great if I wanna watch movies all day, unfortunately for the apparently unaware laptop industry, I need to also work a little bit sometimes.
Thankfully Apple never jumped on the stupid 16:9 bandwagon with their laptops. Now if only some monitor manufacturer would wake up and start making 27"+, 16:10, 4K+ monitors with 120hz+ refresh rate then I'll literally instantly buy 5.
A poor cope for being forced to use a media consumption format. In order to make full use of the ratio ill-suited to productive work, you are compelled to adopt a specific workflow involving two windows being open at all times. Great, that stackoverflow search page can stay open. Do yourself a favor: pivot one of your cursed resolution monitors and open a source file on it in full screen. That is how many text rows you lost in the war on general purpose computing.
