If the new M17x was 16:9, would you still buy it?

The new M17x uses a 16:10 aspect ratio display with 1440x900 and 1920x1200 resolution options. The majority of notebooks coming out now have 16:9 screens, which have the same horizontal (side-to-side) resolution as 16:10 monitors but less vertical space.

For example, if the M17x was offered with 16:9 resolution panels, it would have 1920x1080 as the top resolution instead of 1920x1200 (a loss of 120 vertical pixels, approx. 10% less space).

My question - would you have still bought the M17x if it was 16:9? And which aspect ratio, 16:9 or 16:10, do you prefer? Please select TWO options in the poll above (1 or 2, and 3,4, or 5) and leave your comments below.

Input would be appreciated.

 

Yeah i would have . i owned the W90 another 16:9 machine and it didnt bother me abit.

 

I'm sorry, I read the "Select TWO options" after I voted.

But I always wondered, since movies are set in 1080p..and I've learned that playing anything other than your native resolution on a LCD would be degraded in quality..wouldn't 1200p not be suitable for HD movies?

 

I don't really care, but I like 16:10 since that is what my desktop monitor uses.

 

Generally no, though depending on your playback software, if you turn image scaling OFF it will not stretch the image, so it will display the 1080 vertical pixels within the 1200 pixels, leaving 120 pixels worth of black bars at the top/bottom.

I voted NO and PREFER 16:10. I like having more vertical real estate, and there are enough movies out there that aren't exactly 1.78 ratio which means the screen usually has some amount of black bars.

 

Voted yes and I don't care if it's 16:10 or 16:9.

 

me too Mandrake =P


And yes im still alive, just getting ready for college. ..If people were curious..

 

Nope, no one was curious .

I'm getting ready for uni...fun stuff eh?

 

Yeah, I leave tomorrow. packing blows, same with buying stuff for your dorm.

But back to discussion, Both 16:9 and 16:10 are acceptable to me. I assume it only sucks if you are used to one and then switch. MORE VOTING GO!

 

Voted yes, and I prefer 16:10. Extra desktop space is useful, and losing it for no real reason is a little silly. Im happy to use 16:9, so I'd still buy it if I was going to, but I'd prefer 1920x1200.

The only benefit a 1920x1080 screen would give me is being able to clone with my 1080p panny.

 

I know I am in the minority on this BUT I prefer the wider aspect of 16:9 displays.

I know, I know... Call me crazy but the wider the better! lol

 

Actually, there is nothing "wider" about 1920x1200 vs 1920x1080 but a loss of 120 vertical pixels.
Yes, you are crazy.

Personally, I am a pixel savy person. I want all my pixels!

For instance, I wish there was a way to COMPLETELY hide the windows taskbar if you put it on "auto hide," but somehow you can never get rid of that 2 pixel line showing the taskbar. ARGH!

 

Don't know what your talking about but 16:9 is definitely wider than 16:10.

Maybe a refresher on ratios would help? lol

The pic shows green as 16:9 and blue/purple as 16:10

 

I would have bought it either way.

 

What would you personally pick Chaz?

 

17" 16:10 screen is 14.42" wide x 9.01" high
17.3" 16:9 screen is 15.08" wide x 8.48" high

That's wider.

The change in dimensions also result in the 1920x1200 having a different DPI then 1920x1080 which means images, fonts, and everything else drawn on the screen is larger on the 16:9 screen. On a 17.3" screen a 1920x1080's 128 DPI lies between a 1680x1050's 117 DPI and a 1920x1200's 133 DPI.

Just because a couple of the numbers match does not mean they look the same or are the same resolutions.


Anyway needless to say I voted yes I'd buy a 17.3" 16:9 M17x and I also prefer 16:9 over 16:10 since the increased ratio of horizontal pixels to vertical pixels allows smaller screen areas to contain more pixels at readable DPI. Before it's launch I was calling for the M17x to use Dell's 2048x1152 resolution. (135 DPI @ 17.3")

 

I would still have bought it, for me the ability to do true 1080p playback is the requirement.

I would still prefer 1920x1200 though, as the extra vertical resolution is VERY nice for EVERYTHING else you do with a computer....browsing, multiple windows, excel, word etc

 

honestly that was a choice between the sager np9850 and the m17x and even though it's not a big difference i'll like to get as much as i can. so i would prefer 16:10 over 16:9.

 

Yes, I would still buy it.

 

I can get by gaming with 15-20 inch displays just fine trying to save space and mobility and all even my desktop monitors are only 20inch since price and space are a concern. I'm more interested in quality of the lcd than a little extra work space

 

I really prefer a 16:10 for a computer...Since "most" playback" players automatically adjust the movie settings to 1080P...And when you close the player, automatically puts it back to 1200p

HDTV's are differenct of course though

 

heck for me the higher the resolution the better, if its greater than HD, even better. I'm tired of the industry being hung up on the HD standard like a lovesick puppy!!!!

 

What I find interesting is that as I write this post a total of 50 people have voted yet there's only 31 Yes/No votes and 49 preference votes.

What that means is 37% of the people taking this poll don't know how to read instructions. :wink:

 

The results so far also show that more people would be happy with a 1920x1200 screen than a 1920x1080, as 43 people dont care or have a preference for 1920x1200, whereas only 24 are non plussed or would prefer 1920x1080.

 

Could be that some % of the 37% DO know how to read instructions but didn't because they assumed that it was like most polls with only 1 selection.

 

I read the instructions. I simply decided to select only one answer.

 

Those are both the same level of fail.

 

16:9, But only if it keeps itself at the 17" range. I've seen 16:9 on 17.3" lappys which is awesome, but it's not impressive to see 18.4" chassis with dual 280's and a qx9300 for me.

 

Honestly though how different is that comparison to asking people if they prefer 1920x1200 to 1680x1050?


As long as we're dealing with hypothetical questions why not see if results would change if you offered a 16:10 screen with a 1920x1200 resolution (133DPI@17") vs. a 16:9 screen with a 2048x1152 resolution (135 DPI @17.3").

 

No it's not. some prefer 16:9 and some prefer 16:10. i want the most so i'm going with 16:10.

 

Quite a bit imo, 1920x1080 is much closer than 1680x1050 and again due to higher DPI looks sharper, I just prefer the extra height; 16:9 is nicer for some things, but I prefer the extra desktop estate

The 2048x1152 option would be interesting; not sure how well the majority of drivers and games support it though as its such an uncommon res.

 

That's the thing though is you're comparing a higher resolution vs. a lower resolution in either example. Do you prefer the higher pixel count of 1920x1200 or the better DPI of 1680x1050? 1920x1200's pixels or 1920x1080's DPI?


But that's not really comparing aspect ratios.

When you compare the aspect ratios themselves 16:9 is better than 16:10 because it has the potential to add more pixels in the same screen area at approximately the same DPI.

16:9 can do that because it gives you 1.78 horizontal pixels for every vertical pixel instead of 1.6 horizontal for every vertical like 16:10 does.


16:10 haters need to realize that they can get more out of 16:9 and instead of trying to fight some lost cause to keep an aspect ratio that's worse for them they should push to get the higher resolutions 16:9 is capable of.

 

Yes, and I dont care either way.

 

I personally prefer 16:10 for the simple reason that there is more vertical resolution. I use a 1920x1200 display on my desktop and I would not appreciate losing 120 vertical pixels.

I didn't vote/post at the beginning because I didn't want to influence the poll results.

 

Well, I voted Yes and I don't care. No real arguments, I wouldn't miss the pixels because both are good enough for me.

 

Well we know everything is headed to 16:9 sooner rather then later so the people who love 16:10 more should enjoy it while it lasts .

 

I dont see what the debate is about here...you aren't really going to care that much in the end. its like we are all sitting in a bar:

"yeah i guess id go for that 16:10 over there"
"what about that 16:9"
"well, yeah id hit that too"



oh and sidenote i love how laptop companies advertise their screen resolution as ZOM|G 1200P R8 BTTR THAN HDDDD!!!!

haha like 1200 vertical pixles is some breakthrough, my 5 year old laptop has a 1920x1200 display.

 

Since the HD boom everything is going to now be listed like that (Full HD 1080, etc).

Trying to make it easier for the sheep, erm, I mean consumers out there.

 

Alienware i think actually penned that whole 1200p(better then HD) thing but yeah 1920x1200 screens are older then dirt. Sounds good on paper though.

 

most companies are stopping or have already stopped 16:10 production on a lot of sizes

 

I don't know Quad..

...dirt is pretty old

 

I have no preference. I've had a 1080p screen on just a 16" before and my eyes handled it just fine. Seems even more at home on an 18.4" screen, and takes the term desktop replacement even further. My next laptop will probably be one with dual GPU's and an 18.4" chassis.

Also, it's just easier to say 1080p when someone asks what your screen res is, haha. It's a bit too geeky for me to explain to someone the difference of a 1920 x 1200 and 1920 x 1080 screen, but by now anyone who's gone TV or Blu Ray shopping knows the term 1080p and what it means. It makes sense as an evolutionary step in the computer and high definition industry.

 

The p just stands for progressive scan so really you can tack p onto the end of any vertical resolution on a progressive scan screen.

You just won't be able to tell if 900p means 1440x900 or 1600x900 unless you know the aspect ratio.

 

Exactly my point! We have been hung up on 1200 lines for like the longest time! And now, because the industry is lovestruck with HD, we are in fact, going backwards in computer resolution it seems. I want to see more 2560 by 1600! Heck, I wanna see 2000 line monitor!!

 

Hmm, "better?" That sounds so subjective. Actually, the increase in aspect ratio to 16:9 just lessens the black lines (which bother some people). Otherwise, the difference is significant. But I'd buy it either way.

 

I prefer 16:10. I need every pixel I can get. =P

When they start making 3840x2160 screens, maybe then I'll start considering 16 by 9 displays.

 

hell yeah! That is what I am talking about lol

 

Careful, the resolution may soon end up better than your eyes can see; and the 2560 by 1600 should be about that point. Remember, in music even the most basic devices can perform at the standard 20-20,000 hz, well above the hearing of "most" people.

 

lol good point, but I do have sharp eye....

 

Usaully if your lcd screen resolution has a multiple of 8 it is good for laptop use. Like full hd is a multiple of 8.
I prefer 16/9 because even though the screen size is almost the same the 16/9 is more a moviewatchingthing and 16/10 is more for workingspacething. Also more pixels means more space on the same size screen i think so 16/9 ftw