Calling a 3:2 display a con is a bit harsh considering it’s very much a personal preference.

If you’re primarily a media consumer then sure, 16:9 is preferable as you end up less letterboxed with most contemporary media. This being the case, you might have been better off waiting for a Framework Laptop 16 with its 16:10 ratio display. I believe it also has better speakers.

If you code, edit documents, basically anything that involves vertical scrolling through stuff, the more vertical you can get the better. It also affords a deeper palm rest without having a stupidly wide chassis.

I have a super-ultrawide on my desk, but although it allows for two native 16:9 windows side-by-side, it’s more commonly arranged with thee square-ish windows across its width as unless I’m doing something very wrong with Python, I really don’t need the width. More vertical, more better for my use cases!

I do wish the screen was 16:10, if just for the fact that there are more panels available in that form factor for Framework to choose from (especially touch or high refresh rates, creative-tailored displays etc).

3:2, I’ve only seen on the Surface Laptop elsewhere on the market and I don’t expect Framework will soon command the volumes to get bespoke panels made for themselves. The same goes for other accessories like bags and privacy screen filters.

Less that the framework speakers are bad, and more that Apple’s are massively better than anything else!

Ew no, 3:2 for FW 13 is so much better than 16:9. That’s for media and gaming. An ultrabook like this with no GPU is more for office work shit. I’d rather have 3:2 for more vertical real estate when reading PDFs or word docs or spreadsheets etc.

Like you, I initially didn’t like the 3:2 screen ratio but after just a couple days of using it, I like it FAR better than 16:9 for small form factor laptops and monitors. It is SO SO much more useful.

If you want to try to improve the speakers somewhat, try this: https://wwmm.github.io/easyeffects/guide_1.html

the speakers really are framework’s achilles’ heel and there is no reliable fix unfortunately. there isn’t a general issue with the screen ratio (it’s a matter of taste and i’m sure you’ll get used to it quickly), but the weird resolution and the fact that it forces fractional scaling is still a bit annoying on linux, comparatively.

on arm: there’s been a lot of speculation, for a while there was no viable option but a new challenger appeared and i’d be surprised if framework hadn’t started talking to them yet.

hello, thanks,

what scaling you using ? thanks

I’m not a huge fan of the 3:2 screen, mainly because it makes the laptop relatively large (deep) for a 13.5-incher and kinda kills some of the portability factor. I’d much prefer a 16:10 screen. Definitely not a 16:9 screen though – those are hopefully soon to be consigned to the annals of history.

Every point is a W except the screen ratio. Makes me thinking you would’ve been better off waiting for the 16" which does have a 16:9 iirc

It’s prefer the 3:2 screen, and am contemplating cancelling my 16 and getting a 13 over it

16:9 is the worst aspect ratio. Rubbish for productivity because of lack of vertical space, and rubbish for media because ultrawide exists. 16:9 was a mistake and the industry is better off for leaving it behind.

Do you care to share any specific AUR packages or special things you needed to do to make the touchpad, screen, audio, etc work? I’m planning on installing arch when mine comes in. Currently running Ubuntu for my daily driver but really want to give arch with btrfs a try, really like the idea of newer software and a rolling release, and with snapper I should be pretty well protected if an update causes issues.