Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Say Goodbye to 16:10 Notebook Displays

Tags:
  • Notebooks
  • Displays
  • Product
Last response: in News comments
Share
April 29, 2009 5:15:45 PM

I prefer 16:10 laptops more than 16:9. Wide is good, too wide is stupid. 16:9 is only good for gaming or video watching, but when working, you'd want a more boxed screen since you would like to see more of what's below and not everyone likes to keep scrolling.
Score
20
April 29, 2009 5:27:51 PM

The reason I waited to go LCD for so long was that your normal 16:10 LCDs weren't available in a vertical resolution greater than 1024, which is not enough for me. Granted laptops are expected to be smaller, but 768 vertical pixels is just going backwards.
Score
8
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 29, 2009 5:34:26 PM

People keep complaining about aspect ratio when what they are saying clearly states that vertical pixel count is far more important. Please be specific in your gripes, as the symptom does not seem to match the cause.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 5:43:06 PM

I want my 4:3 back....it's getting hard to even find a desktop LCD in larger sizes that isn't "widescreen"
Score
3
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 5:43:57 PM

amen to that "Wide is good, too wide is stupid" -deltatux
"LCDs weren't available in a vertical resolution greater than 1024" ???Gateway FX P-780 1920x1200
Score
1
April 29, 2009 5:49:18 PM

KyleSTLPeople keep complaining about aspect ratio when what they are saying clearly states that vertical pixel count is far more important. Please be specific in your gripes, as the symptom does not seem to match the cause.

Who are you talking about, me? My point with wide-aspect screens is that typically they have lower vertical resolution. It took a few years before a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor was an affordable price.

The move to 16x9 means less vertical resolution with the same technology. As the article states, Dell currently offers 16:10 resolutions of 1200x800 and 1440x900, but their new 16:9 comes in 1366x768. Therefore, the move to a different aspect ratio has led to a decrease in vertical pixels due to the constrained size of the laptop itself. Here, resolution and aspect ratio are directly tied together.
Score
8
April 29, 2009 5:51:54 PM

Interestingly enough, it brings back more practicality to having an autosensing rotational display.

Granted that has been around for a long time, but having an even (proportionally) narrower feild of view makes it notably more useful to be able to rotate your monitor vertical for many apps (surfing, typing) and then flip it back wide for others (spreadsheets, gaming and the like).
Score
3
April 29, 2009 5:54:15 PM

LK"LCDs weren't available in a vertical resolution greater than 1024" ???Gateway FX P-780 1920x1200

I meant they weren't available "at a good price" early on, not that they didn't exist.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 6:01:21 PM

Who needs more horizontal resolution on a monitor? This is just to make manufacturing cheaper (i.e. same panels as a TV).
Score
2
April 29, 2009 6:18:31 PM

I don't want 16x9.

>:o 

>:o 

>:o 
Score
1
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 6:36:28 PM

16:9 is nice if it has at least a 22" diagonal. Many Applications like Most IDEs and Painting programs have a sidebar that fits well in 16:9. It's also nice to have firefox on the left while watching tv on the right side... I like my 16:9 monitor more than my 5:4.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 6:40:51 PM

LKamen to that "Wide is good, too wide is stupid" -deltatux"LCDs weren't available in a vertical resolution greater than 1024" ???Gateway FX P-780 1920x1200


yeah i know what you mean.. ;/
Score
0
April 29, 2009 6:43:51 PM

Master ExonI don't want 16x9.>>>

im with u bro... i want 4:3
Score
1
April 29, 2009 6:55:51 PM

I'm mixed on this.

This is a bummer for older games and other programs that don't support the 16x9 resolutions. I have a 24" LCD monitor and a 46" HDTV. One supports 1600 x 1200 resolution for some older 4x3 games, while the other only supports up to 1024 x 768. Guess which is which...

I know this is as much the software author's fault as anything else, but that software was here first.

On the flip side, there is a real possibility that this can help drive a convergence towards standardized aspect ratios across computer and entertainment equipment, which is a good thing given where things are headed with internet TV, media centers, etc.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 7:11:34 PM

This will only be a good thing if they start making more rotatable monitors. There's a line from HP that rotate from landscape to portrait, but I still hate the 16:9 concept for computers. They are productivity machines, not just entertainment machines.
Score
3
April 29, 2009 7:12:36 PM

I'm on to 16:10 anyday.. 16:9 are too wide for a computer screen. Not practical at all.. I even keep my taskbar to the right side of the panel just to increase the overal size of the pages I'm working with (meaning spreadsheets, text editors, image editors)..
Score
3
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 7:26:10 PM

16:10 is preferable for both my laptop screen and my desktop monitors.

I will not purchase a 16:9 laptop unless the vertical resolution was at the very least 1200 or more.
Score
1
April 29, 2009 7:43:21 PM

Bash me if you will, but I like standardization. It simply makes things easier. I never liked 5:4 because it was a deviation from standard 4:3. I think 16:10 should have never existed. We should have had 16:9 from the start, so it would be compatible with the HDTV ratio.

I also agree that rotatable monitors are nice. Mine is! I use it in portrait mode for office/web surfing, and in landscape for gaming/watching video.
Score
3
April 29, 2009 8:28:04 PM

I'll concur with the arguments for standardization, but the fact of the matter is I want a 17" 1920x1200 notebook for serious work use and they are becoming just too hard to find or overly expensive. Professional users who need the screen real estate won't be too happy moving down from 16:10 to 16:9.

I guess it's time to invest in that 30" panel - wonder when those disappear.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 8:53:25 PM

Now if Microsoft would only fix Cleartype for portrait mode ...
Score
3
April 29, 2009 9:05:07 PM

When you're on the web, content always extends vertically and they usually crop the horizontal at 800 pixels so older PCs can display the pages properly. They should make these 16:9 screens rotating so you can flip it into web mode. (but with greater than 768 pixels on that axis)
Score
0
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 9:24:09 PM

Now that would be an idea, a laptop with which you can rotate the screen and I don't mean Tablet PC's either as I want my screen to be standing up, not laying flat. I also want to be able to use my keyboard.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 9:38:07 PM

Quote:
Computer content, such as webpages, are designed for vertical strolling, making the slightly added vertical resolution of a 16:10 display somewhat more practical.


No no no no no.. What's practical is 4:3! Whenever I start up my old 15" laptop from around 2001 I just feel so relaxed! You can feel the difference in working space compared to my newer 15" 16:10 laptop.

These wide aspect ratios has nothing to do with practicality, but indeed everything to do with manufacturing processes and cost. I don't need widescreen on my laptop. I connect it to my TV if I want to watch a movie I have on it.
Score
3
April 29, 2009 9:58:34 PM

My laptop's 16:10, and I'm sticking by it. If all the manufacturers move to 16:9, then I just might have to consider other manufacturers. Perhaps Asus or maybe even ones like Fujitsu. The latter still makes 4:3 screens I believe.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 10:09:31 PM

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.
Score
0
April 29, 2009 10:12:36 PM

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.
Score
-2
April 29, 2009 10:19:28 PM

hellwig said:
Who are you talking about, me? My point with wide-aspect screens is that typically they have lower vertical resolution. It took a few years before a 16:10 1680x1050 monitor was an affordable price.

The move to 16x9 means less vertical resolution with the same technology. As the article states, Dell currently offers 16:10 resolutions of 1200x800 and 1440x900, but their new 16:9 comes in 1366x768. Therefore, the move to a different aspect ratio has led to a decrease in vertical pixels due to the constrained size of the laptop itself. Here, resolution and aspect ratio are directly tied together.

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.
Score
-1
April 29, 2009 10:43:29 PM

I don't need wide.
No love for those with dual-displays?
Score
0
April 29, 2009 10:43:56 PM

I don't need wide.
No love for those with dual-displays?
Score
-3
April 29, 2009 10:55:08 PM

I'm running 2 22" wides, its not so bad, but you definitely need to desk space.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 29, 2009 11:06:34 PM

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.


Score
5
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 1:14:07 AM

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).
Score
1
April 30, 2009 5:53:03 AM

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!
Score
1
April 30, 2009 10:53:21 AM

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.
Score
0
Anonymous
April 30, 2009 11:04:43 AM

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...
Score
0
April 30, 2009 12:52:43 PM

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.
Score
1
April 30, 2009 12:58:32 PM

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.
Score
0
April 30, 2009 2:38:39 PM

Quote:
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...

You obviously don't own/run a business, and that is why you fail.
Score
0
April 30, 2009 2:48:24 PM

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 ?
Score
-4
April 30, 2009 3:39:25 PM

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.
Score
0
April 30, 2009 4:09:49 PM

WyomingKnott said:
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.
Score
0
April 30, 2009 6:22:47 PM

ceterasThey 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.


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.
Score
0
April 30, 2009 10:00:35 PM

bounty said:
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.
Score
0
May 2, 2009 12:09:36 AM

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.
Score
-1
May 4, 2009 3:25:53 PM

D2ModPlayer said:
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.
Score
1
Anonymous
August 9, 2011 10:39:50 PM

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.
Score
0
September 13, 2011 10:34:24 PM

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...
.
Score
0
!