should I hold out for the M6600?

The M6600 is going to 17.3" according to most sites including NBR:
Dell Precision M4600, M6600 Mobile Workstations to arrive soon - Notebookcheck.net News
Furthermore according to most websites the M4600 will too be in a 16:9 flavor with a 15.6" LCD.

120 pixels of vertical lines also known as 10% of total pixels, however only a 2%-3% loss in pixels per square inch and a 30%-50% difference in price with 16:10 being more expensive is almost a funny comparison.

In terms of scrolling it doesn't really matter considering it takes considerably more then just 5 seconds of attention to read the content in one page (1200P or 1080P). In terms of picture editing, it's kinda funny considering most pictures even from standard consumer cameras are in the 3k resolution spectrum where 120 vertical pixels accounts for almost nothing, I won't even mention 4k-5k resolution pictures. In video, well we all know 16:9 will take the lead there in most commonly used high definition digital formats (16:9 or cinematic etc almost anything wider then 16:10 will have more surface area on a 16:9 panel that's why 16:9 aspect ratio for movies/tv has been pushed since the 1980's.)

About the only argument is the golden aspect ratio and of course 120 extra vertical pixels (which the difference is minute) which in of itself is complete and utter nonsense to most design majors.

 

I don't understand this part. How is 16:9 (1920x1080) more surface area than 16:10 (1920x1200)? A 17" 16:10 panel has dimensions of 9" by 14.4" (approx), and so an area of 129.6 square inches. A 17.3" 16:9 panel has dimensions of 8.48" by 15.1" (approx) and so an area of 128 square inches. Don't forget that as you go to a more rectangular format, you need a bigger increase in dimensions to "keep up" with a more square format in surface area. This is, after all, a big part of why they want to move to 16:9 in the first place; because it's less surface area, they can cut more screens out of a given sheet size, which is why 16:9 screens are cheaper than 16:10.

I don't know about design majors, but 120 vertical pixels is a big difference to me. And if that's the case, why is 1600x900 preferred to 1366x768? It's "only" 132 pixels there. Personally, I wouldn't mind the shift to 16:9 as long as it also came with an increase in available resolutions. This is a _big_ part of the reason why the change from 4:3 to 16:10 wasn't argued about quite as much (although it still was!). 16:10 also generally came with an increase in resolution. 16:9 however, isn't as much.

 

1st. If your looking at content that is wider then 16:10, then 16:9 will let you see more squared inches of area. For example watching a 16:9 movie will give you more viewable area on a 16:9 then a 16:10, and an cinematic movie (even wider then 16:9) will still give you a larger viewable area on a 16:9 then on a 16:10.

2nd No it isn't only 132 pixels, please look again and learn to make a fair comparison. That's 132 lines of pixels vertically and 234 lines of horizontal pixels. that's equivalent to 366 pixel lines total. Btw what was the point with this example? It is obviously not making any sense putting a 16:9 vs a 16:9 when this is a 16:9 vs 16:10 discussion.

? Increase in resolution? You do realize there were plenty of 1200x1000~ resolution monitors@ 17" before, while 16:10 was stuck at around 1440x900~? I won't even talk about the behemoth CRT's that could do 2000x1700- or 1800 I forget, making 1920x1200 look like a child's toy.
Even in the 16:9 vs 16:10 area there is already 2000x1150~ 16:9 LCD's out there for a lower cost then a 16:10 ($200~ if I recall correctly vs $230-$300 for a 16:10).

 

Well, not everybody does nothing but look at pretty pictures. There are those of us who need to look at text documents, every now and then, anyway...

 

Point in case, it doesn't look like Dell will reverse the trend of 16:9 on their newest models. I refuse to buy 16:9 for laptops larger for 14.1" and larger unless an upgrade option is available down the road. Losing vertical real estate is just no good.

And not everyone needs the wide-screen, not everyone watches movies. Many people need the vertical real estate for programmers, and overall viewing web browsers is more enjoyable.

 

Yeah like 200 page books, or 18 page spreadsheets? Something along those lines? That's what I do at least once a week 120 vertical pixels hardly helps with scrolling, and it definitely does not help with the content on page considering you can't ready an entire page in under 5-10 seconds unless you skim in which case why not just google a summary?

 

yeah im more of a fan of standard screens... unfortunally they are getting hard to find.

not having to scroll as much is nice.. and moreso when working on my websites...

 

Hm. OK, I see what you're getting at. I rarely watch movies on my notebook though, as it's a workstation, not a multimedia machine.

The complaints I've seen from people working (not playing) with 1600x900 screens versus 1366x768 screens all focus on the vertical resolution loss, not the width, because, frankly, a lot of people still don't work with 2 documents opened up side by side, so they don't notice the difference in width. They certainly notice the difference in height, though! If it would make you happier, we could compare 1280x800 to 1600x900.

Sorry, I should have been more specific. I meant screens built into notebooks, not externals. When I can get 2560x1440 in a 16:9 display, I'll be happy with them.

 

Bah I wrote a few paragraphs then I realized I could sum up the whole 16:9/16:10 issue into one sentence:
Different strokes for different folks.

If 16:9 doesn't please you, too bad because we are the minority in the market and the market will not conform for us. Deal with it, because complaining about it only makes you look like a baby who's sucker got taken away.

 

Well, this stinks. I have a refurb M6500 with a 940xm due to be delivered today. I was going to refuse it and wait for the M6600, but I am in the 16:10 camp. Do you really think it's worth holding onto older hardware for 120 pixels??? Such a dilemma! The refurb was also 20% off, but maybe Dell Outlet offers such discounts all the time...