Say Goodbye to 16:10 Notebook Displays

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Status
Not open for further replies.
I to prefer 16:10 over 16:9, I have a 19" 16:10 1440x900 LCD display and I have enough space horizontally and vertically but with a 16:9 display the vertical resolution would be to low for a 19" display.

I find 16:9 stupid because it's somehow a resemblance of the 69 sex position, so I think that the adoption of the 16:9 aspect ratio it's based on humans obsession on the 69 sex position.
 
I too prefer 16:10 over 16:9, I have a 19" 16:10 1440x900 LCD display and I have enough space horizontally and vertically but with a 16:9 display the vertical resolution would be to low for a 19" display.

I find 16:9 stupid because it's somehow a resemblance of the 69 sex position, so I think that the adoption of the 16:9 aspect ratio it's based on humans obsession on the 69 sex position.
 

No I was not referring to you, but you give me a good jumping off for my main point.

'Sweet-spot' resolutions have progressed as follows:
800*600
1024*768
1280*1024
1440*900
1680*1050

Note that except for the dip from 1280 to 1440, the vertical pixels have continually increased. The next 'sweet-spot' is clearly the 22-24" 1920*1080 screens, which have 30 more vertical pixels than the previous resolution. Yes, 1600*1200 monitors are pretty hard to come by (and are expensive as they've always been), but that's why we have 1920*1200 aswell, and the 2048*1152 is becoming more common (see: Dell, Newegg, etc). Yes, the resolution of certain laptops is a problem since notebooks aren't getting any wider, but you can hardly complain about the desktop LCD market as you can get a 1680 monitor for <$160 and a 1080p monitor for <$200. Compare this to the prices a year, 2 years or 5 years ago and you'll see there is hardly anything to complain about.
 
The reason why manufacturers are switching from 16:10 to 16:9 is the same as when they forced 16:10 onto us when we were using 4:3/5:4; consumer stupidity. 19-inch (diagonal) 16:9 has less real-estate than a 19-inch 16:10. So, by switching from 16:10 to 16:9, manufacturers can continue to claim that this particular screen size is still 19-inches diagonally while they are selling you a screen with less surface area. It’s was a rip-off when the switch to 16:10 was made, and it’s a rip-off now when the switch to 16:9 is being made. They will make money from this switch, and we will be stuck with smaller and less practical screens for computer use.


 
Costs less for manufacturers.
We'll probably see 1280x720 soon (16/9) as opposed to 1280x800.

The good thing about 1280x800 screens is when you have a program running at 1280x768 pix, that you can still see the start bar on the bottom in windowed mode, while only giving tiny bars in fullscreen 1280x800. That'll change with 1280x720 screens.

Not all software supports 16/9. You might end up having to lower resolution to play the game (and perhaps even with black bars on the side, or stretched and blurry on LCD screens).
 
Yeah, I'll take a 16x9 screen... when 2560x1440 becomes affordable! Wait... why would I ever do that? There's 2560x1600 resolution screens available right now!

In my eyes, a perfect "work" type screen would be 4x3 without question. 4x3 is what I have been using for years for everything from work to play, photos and word docs to Blu-ray and Guitar Hero III. This has always suited me just fine.

However, if I was a die-hard for a wider aspect ratio screen, it would still be 16x10 instead of 16x9, and yes, this even includes movie watching. Reason being this: if you're watching movies on a 16x10 screen, you have a small amount of vertical resolution that goes unused, which is honestly a good thing because if you have a control toolbar pop up, it's not covering any of the video. 60 extra pixels on the top and bottom is plenty to take care of this, but if you don't have that little extra bit of space, when your controls pop up, they cover your video. Being that I use 4x3, I've never had this problem, ever. Of course, all the other reasons others have mentioned (gaming, vertical resolution loss, etc...) also apply to my reasoning that if I HAD to go wide, I'd choose 16x10.

However, I can still honestly state that my screen has more overall usable real estate than even 16x10's. 1792 by 1344 > 1920 by 1200. Add it up for yourself!
 
They made studies about the way our eyes scan the scenes, and they found that we are more often searching horizontally than vertically.
It seems so natural to go wide.
And also, scrolling never bothered me, it's also natural for me.
What bothers me is when I have to read long lines of code that don't fit on one row...
The IDE's today have some clutter with all kinds of toolbars, and it greatly helps to either close them or get a wider screen.
I see the difference at work, wider is better.
 
I honestly don't understand why manufacturers seem determined to make life as uncomfortable for their customers as they possibly can for the sake of pursuing the delusion that notebooks are supposed to replace the TV. First we have to endure absurd glossy screens which render the notebook useless if you try to use it with a window or light behind you. Or anywhere outdoors on a sunny day. Or any game / movie with dark scenes where all you can see is a reflection of yourself unless the room you're in is under wartime blackout conditions.

Now we're being given less vertical viewing space making them less useful for the vast majority of office & web work done where vertical scrolling occurs far more than horizontal. Adding more horizontal resolution is pointless above 1280 for notebooks as most websites will just be rendered with extra white space at the side, whilst nothing short of 1920 pixels is wide enough to have two Word pages / 2 Firefox windows side by side to read comfortably. Given the small cost difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1090 desktop TFT's, the cost "saving" must be about 5% - for a screen that's 10% less useful. I just don't get it...
 
As people have pointed they just found a way to cut production cost while keeping prices high. it is unbelivable how they are actually charging more for 16:9 displays than 16:10. Some of them are even trying to pass the message that the content won't look as good in 16:10 displays. Wrong. IF your monitor is capable of proper 1:1 pixel scaling you'll see any 1080p content in the same way as in a 16:9 display. The only difference is that you'll have some black bars above and below. But in terms of aspect ratio and screen size it will be exactly the same. 16:10 is VERY usefull. Having more space is always a good thing for work, browsing and so on. It is good for gaming too. A 16:10 display will let you go up to 1920x1200 resolution. Again higher resolution for the traditional 24' display.
 
Oh another thing. The change is not about making screens wider. If that was the case then we wouldn't be talking about a change from 16:10 to 16:9. We would instead be talking about a change from 16:10 to 17:10 or whatever. The change to wider screens has already been made in the past when LCDs went into market in 16:10. We didn't continue the square aspect that old tv and crts had.
 
Given the small cost difference between 1920x1200 and 1920x1090 desktop TFT's, the cost "saving" must be about 5% - for a screen that's 10% less useful. I just don't get it...
Click to expand...
You obviously don't own/run a business, and that is why you fail.
 
16:9 it's not a technical decision it's a sexual decision taken by those obsessed by the 69 sex position, don't u see the similarities 16:9 and 69 ?
 
The aspect ratio progression is interesting. To me, it shows a change in the way that people think about computers.
Real work is higher than it is wide - code, documents for work which are still based on 8.5 x 11 or a4 (?). Entertainment is wider than it is high, and has been getting more so over time. 4:3 was a television. 16:9 is a movie screen. So it seems to me that the computer is being viewed primarily as an entertainment device. What do you think?
I'm still waiting for a decent portrait-mode display - the viewing angles on the ones that I have tried are atrocious.
 

TNs should never be used in portrait because of that. You'll need to shell-out for an IPS or MVA panel to get good quality like that. I think for content creation (photos, video, 3D, CAD, etc) that widescreen is better because of toolbars and whatnot.
 
[citation][nom]ceteras[/nom]They made studies about the way our eyes scan the scenes, and they found that we are more often searching horizontally than vertically.It seems so natural to go wide.And also, scrolling never bothered me, it's also natural for me.What bothers me is when I have to read long lines of code that don't fit on one row...The IDE's today have some clutter with all kinds of toolbars, and it greatly helps to either close them or get a wider screen.I see the difference at work, wider is better.[/citation]

Bull$#!+ We scan horizontally because that's how we read, left to right. Now try to imagine reading a newspaper if the text ran all the way across the screen. Your return sweep would leave you searching for the next line everytime. That's what's happening with widescreen. Big business makes extra 5% on smaller displays, and gets to call them "Entertainment" laptops wich sounds all fancy. I'd be fine with this if "Business" laptops would get square ratio screens. Plus they need to make "Business" desktop LCD's as well.
 

Solution: don't click the 'fullscreen' button on the browser window. See? How hard was that? Now you have room to put WSJ, NYT and your local paper all on your desktop at the same time! Also consider:
1) Change font size (in browser settings)
2) Change font size (in Vista control panel)
3) Change your monitor to portrait
I think your rant is not well thought-out and in some cases, unfounded. I think you're simply resistant to change, and there's no reason to cuss at the guy you disagree with, that's just rude and disrespectful.

Edit: He is exactly right about scanning. Humans have much better peripheral vision in the horizontal axis that the vertical.
 
To me going 16x9 on PC's and notebooks doesn't make alot of sense. It's like saying people only use their computers for watching movies. I like my 4x3 monitor. Widescreen is great for alot of things, but not so great for others. How does the Hollywood standard have anything to do with PC's? I can't even find a 4x3 monitor anywhere anymore, it's just silly.
 

4:3 monitors
Never underestimate the power of underestimation. (or possibly laziness or inepititude)

Edit: and there's absolutely no reason to buy a 1600x1200 monitor for $800+ when 1920x1200 montiors are available for ~$280+ or 30" 2560x1600 monitors can be had for ~$1000.
 
I had a laptop with 15" screen and 1920x1200 which was nice. Loads of screen realestate, Now it is pretty much impossible to find anything usable, it's all 1366x768 which is too few pixels, I want a 200dpi screen on my next 13" - 14" laptop, and it should be at least 16:10 if not 4:3 :) besides, people who edit HD should appreciate the extra room available for controls on a 16:10 screen.
 
yeah, this trend for less vertical height on a laptop screen is a total anti-computing revolution. If you want to watch movies, get a TV. Or deal with it. The laptop should be designed with actual browsing/document processing etc in mind. Bah. So now with MS 2007 say, and their ridiculous ribbon, you end up with a sliver of screen to type in. Its BAD! It makes actually working on your laptop a chore.

Its all about the $$$ profits and the consumer is getting the stick up the a#@........

So what my laptop wont be compatible with my TV resolution? Im not going to marry them, they wont have mutant kiddies or anything. Its a separate freaking entity. one for watching stuff, the other for working on...

grrr...
.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom