@Mark Ransom & @Silverback Networks, given that we're now stuck with the 16:9 standard, I agree we should definitely make the best of it, but my point is that we could fit more total pixels on our desk (or lap in the case of laptops) if the standard for computer monitors were still 4:3. And Jeff would probably be able to fit three 27" monitors on his desk without the need for special arms and brackets. It's basically the same reasoning that leads cities to build skyscrapers--there's no room to add more buildings (monitors) so you make the buildings taller (4:3 monitors).

@Mark Ransom, that was a response to Factor Mystic's comment and was intended mostly in jest. That said, I do think 4:3 was a better fit for a lot of business and programming tasks than widescreen, especially if you only have one screen (like on a laptop).

4:3 or bust, period. :D

This sort of reminds me of the debate over how high you should set the bit rate when ripping CDs. Audiophiles will insist they can tell the difference between 128 and 256, but the average person can't. It's great that the new iPad finally has the resolution it should have had from the beginning, but I don't think it's exactly a hallelujah moment. What can you actually *do* with a New iPad that you couldn't do with an iPad 1 or 2? I would think the practical advantages are pretty much that you can read text a bit faster or squeeze a bit more content on the screen without having to squint. Perhaps photos look a bit sharper. But all of these are incremental benefits, not a revelation. The real revelation was the difference between the iPad 1 and everything that came before it...

I knew there was something special about those old IBM keyboards. I felt like they doubled my typing speed. Two problems with 'em, though: (1) loud and (2) not ergonomically shaped. If I don't use a V-shaped keyboard, I start getting wrist problems.