Best offers
|
DELL Gaming Backpack Carrying Case... | $89.99 Dell Home More info |
|
Vostro A90 Netbook (1.6GHz Intel Atom... | $219.00 Dell Small Business Systems More info |
|
13.3" MacBook Pro Notebook (2.26GHz... | $1149.00 MacConnection More info |
|
VAIO VGN-NW270F/S Notebook (2.2GHz... | $736.98 STAPLES More info |
|
Inspiron Mini 10v Netbook (1.6GHz... | $279.00 Dell Home Systems More info |
Asus' G51J: Affordable Core i7 Mobile Gaming?
Mobility and gaming have been at odds for a long time, but Asus thinks its G51J could be the solution. With Intel Core i7 Mobile CPU technology and Nvidia’s recent GeForce GTX-260M, is this mid-sized, mid-priced notebook too good to be true at ~$1,500? Read More
-
ASI's IQ17-D2: Is Mobility Radeon HD 3870 X2 Still Fast Enough?
After the launch of ATI's Cypress and Juniper parts, ATI's Mobility Radeon 3870 X2 is now three generations old. Is it still fast enough for gamers on the go? ASI sent us its IQ17-D2 with a mobile Core 2 Extreme and RAID 0 storage in order to find out. Read More
-
Mobile Core i7-920XM: Power Is The Price For Better Performance
Nehalem has finally gone mobile. But despite the advanced manufacturing that has gone into making Core i7 Mobile more efficient, it's still rated at up to 55W TDP and includes features like Hyper-Threading and Turbo Boost to keep it close to that limit. Read More
- lcd of 16 and 10
- notebook 16 10
- screen display too wide
- laptop 4 lcd
- notebook display resolution
- notebook with good display
- good 16 10 lcd
- my computer displays
- lcd screens 16 10
- show movies on computer on my tv
- 4 lcd screen laptop
- widescreen display to 4 3 display on laptop
- laptop 16 9 resolutions
- hp computer no display
- xp resolution 16 9
Partners
The Games selection
adventure :
Scoobydoo: Episode 2
The sequel of Scooby and Sammy's adventures. Same principle as in the previous episode (available on this website). Click on "Instructions" to see...
|
crazy :
Xiao Xiao 7
A great fight scene from the animation movies Xiao Xiao.
|
Sponsored links
Say Goodbye to 16:10 Notebook Displays
Next news- Email |
- Print |
- Comments (46) |
- Share
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.
Source : Tom's Hardware US
Related news
Sponsored links
Related forums topics
Related articles
-
An LCD Screen to Start the Year: Hitachi CML174SXW
Hitachi's new LCD screen pushes the envelope. The response time of the CML174SXW is the fastest of all at only 16 ms! The rest of the characteristics are just as impressive - contrast of 400:1; brightness of 260 cd/sq. m.; 160° angles of vision; etc.
-
CES 2007: ViewSonic highlights widescreen LCD monitors and iPod...
ViewSonic is showcasing a full line of its latest displays at the ongoing 2007 International CES in Las Vegas (January 8-11).
-
Looks Good for the Money: The Cornerstone p2460 19" Flat Screen CRT...
The Cornerstone p2460 19" flat screen, aperture grille CRT is considered to be an industrial monitor aimed at the corporate market, although the $379 price also makes it attractive for the home user. While the p2460 is a good quality monitor that provides a very nice image, the unit we tested was not without a few flaws.









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.
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.
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.
I want my 4:3 back....it's getting hard to even find a desktop LCD in larger sizes that isn't "widescreen"
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
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.
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.
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).
"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.
Who needs more horizontal resolution on a monitor? This is just to make manufacturing cheaper (i.e. same panels as a TV).
I don't want 16x9.



>
>
>
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.
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
yeah i know what you mean.. ;/
I don't want 16x9.>>>
im with u bro... i want 4:3
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.
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.
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)..
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.
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.
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.
Now if Microsoft would only fix Cleartype for portrait mode ...
hmmm, I really don't understand how manufacturers think... I love my dell 2407 (1920x1200 @ 16:10), but yeah, it's more expensive. But why? same technology just a different setup... I guess they really don't care about what people think. I think if they would just drop prices on them to normal price ranges for similar sized monitors, then they would have a lot more people buying them, and they would make more money, instead of just everyone manufacturer banding together and just stop making them without user opinions. I love my display. the wider the better. Seriously, I know that user opinion is split. but, A lot of people prefer dual screen and or widescreen. I prefer widescreen over tall screens because they are better for gaming, and movies. Anyways, just saying, why do they always make these decisions without first asking people, instead of letting some bean counters make the decisions. ???
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't need wide.
No love for those with dual-displays?
I don't need wide.
No love for those with dual-displays?
I'm running 2 22" wides, its not so bad, but you definitely need to desk space.