Apparently PC widescreen displays aren't wide enough
While some computer users are still hanging onto their 4:3 (or even 5:4) LCD displays, the industry made the shift to 16:10 – what we thought to be the computer industry’s version of widescreen.
HDTV’s are all 16:9, but that makes sense for the viewing of TV shows and movies. Computer content, such as webpages, are designed for vertical strolling, making the slightly added vertical resolution of a 16:10 display somewhat more practical.
But throwing practicality aside, the computer industry is already shoving the 16:10 computer displays aside and replacing them with 16:9 versions. Earlier this month, Dell revised its Studio 15 laptop with a 16:9 1366 x 768 screen, ditching the 16:10 options (which came in 1200 x 800 and 1440 x 900). Even HP is going 16:9 with its newest notebook line meant for business users.
According to a Digitimes report, computer makers such as Dell and HP will be dropping the prices of its 16:10 notebooks to clear them out before ushering in new 16:9 models. The price drops are to happen between now and through the third quarter before new models hit in time for the holiday season.
Oddly enough, Digitimes has another story up today reporting that prices for 14.1-inch 16:10 LCD panels are expected to increase in the following months because of short supply caused by manufacturers switching over to 16:9.
With estimates that more than half of all notebook LCD panels will be 16:9 by the end of this year, it might be time to considering jumping into 16:10 before it’s gone like the days of 4:3 and 5:4.
"LCDs weren't available in a vertical resolution greater than 1024" ???Gateway FX P-780 1920x1200
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.
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).
I meant they weren't available "at a good price" early on, not that they didn't exist.
>
>
>
yeah i know what you mean.. ;/
im with u bro... i want 4:3
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.
I will not purchase a 16:9 laptop unless the vertical resolution was at the very least 1200 or more.
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.
I guess it's time to invest in that 30" panel - wonder when those disappear.