16:8?

Just a hypothetical question? What would you do if everything went to 16:8 screen?

I don't have too much problem with 16:9, I actually like being able to have two documents open at once. 16:8 would be pushing it though. It's kind of annoying the change to wide-screen then even more wide-screen. 16:9 thats the widest it'll get, right?

 

Scream and yell about it! Going to 16:9 was terribad enough, losing even more vertical pixels is like losing a dear friend.

 

It's going to depend on what the next media standard becomes. If what's after bluray is 2:1 or even 1.85:1, then computers will follow.

 

I'd ragequit.

 

Well, other point is that its cheaper for manufacturers to make a 15 in (diagonal measure) of a 16:8 than any other narrower screen. The actual area of the screen is smaller as one dimension gets larger than the other.

 

This thread is a sick joke. Just sick!

 

OMG no!!!!!

 

I'd spend more just to find a 16:9, which is already kind bad IMHO. But I could probably keep myself happy by putting this pic as my wallpaper.

 

+1 lololololol.

Yeah I'm still looking for laptops with 16:10 or 4:3 cause it doesn't look like manufacturers will reverse the trend.

 

I'd buy another monitor that can rotate from landscape to portrait, and/or sidemount my monitors again. More useful than you'd think.

 

Dell's new ultrawidescreen monitors with 1980x200 resolution:

 

at that aspect ratio, not that useful. too thin actually. but otherwise, i agree

 

Hard enough working with 16:9.....how they heck will I work with 16:8??????

Ill need a multi monitor just to do basic tasks....

 

Scratch that, another 16:10 or, if I have to, a 16:9, before they go out of style, and mount in portrait.

 

LOL!!!

 

I'd go to 2:1 instead.

 

You wouldn't have to lose vertical pixels. 2400x1200 is possible with a 2:1 (16:8) aspect ratio...though DPI would be tighter.

Something in the 17 inch range would have a screen height around that of a 15.6" and the width of a 18.4". DPI would be slightly higher than 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen.

 

aaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahaahah

 

that's what people told the last times, too..

yet

from 2560x1600 to 2560x1440, from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080 down till from 1280x800 to 1280x720 was what happened.

they don't do it for any other reason than to save money.

 

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

 

Most people liked the switch to wide screen when they lost nothing. The original wide screen 16:10 resolutions were merely an expansion of 4:3 resolutions, 1600x1200 became 1920x1200, etc. The problem has been the switch from normal PC resolutions to TV resolutions, which has resulted in loss of vertical pixels, loss of screen real estate, even wider screen, and inability to display similar but now taller PC resolutions that can't fit in the space of 16:9 without condensing or shrinking the image. I hate that last one especially in games and application that don't support 16:9, now forced to game at lower resolutions like 1280x960 or without wide screen support because 16:9 isn't supported on some titles and 1600x1200 and 1920x1200 are too tall. They should have seriously forced television to up the ante IMO and either switch the format to compatible mode with PCs or simply made them put up with a few extra black lines if they wanted to unify the manufacturing process to one aspect ratio.

 

720p and 1080p are fine for movie viewing, but how much do you watch movies on your laptop? Some people quite a bit maybe but I'd bet 90% of the populace spends less than 10% of their laptop time watching movies.

Since when do companies cater to the least common denominator? Never.

I love my new laptop, but it would have been even better with a 1920x1200 screen. Although at this high resolution, it doesn't matter so much as it does with the lower resolutions.

 

1080p displays just fine on 1920x1200. There really was no reason for them to screw PC monitors up by switching to TV resolutions.

 

Haha. We all still blame manufactures for trying to save a few extra bucks for that

 

It's cause people didn't care about screens except us power users; think of what a 500 dollar laptop could buy you back then? Barely a dual core, 1 GB RAM, 160 GB HDD? Now you can get an i5, 4 GB RAM, 500 GB HDD for that much, but the screens are terrible. Cheap and cheerful as I like to call it.

Too bad I'll be stuck buying older technology as I can't stand 16:9, not to mention 16:8

 

Right, but again, why never the *OPTION* to upgrade to a different screen. Just add more bezel to the 16:9 if these people really don't care, and charge extra for the 16:10.

 

I still have nightmares about 16:9 screens!!!! NO I refuse, NO!!


PS All of apples MBP (including the new ones) are all 16:10. A huge reason I starting to really really like apple.

 

I'm dreading the move to 16:9. 12 inches at that aspect ratio is just going to be painful, and I really don't want 1280x700 to be the new norm. I bought my X201 top spec with the knowledge that Lenovo was going to move to 16x9, to avoid the horror of an X series with that screen ratio.

 

Maybe buy a laptop an throw it at the highest company official for that company that I can find?

Fire off a very angry email at the laptop manufacturers?

Or refuse to buy a laptop - although that might make using a laptop (hate desktops, especially keyboards, 100% laptop user) a bit difficult as they don't last forever...

But I don't think there would be any reason for me to buy a computer that is designed as a glorified video player.
16:10 is perfect for landscape shots - sometimes a bit low for portraits - but Ok, most of my photography is in landscape.

-> My old laptop has a 1024*768 resolution - my Vaio 1280*800 - 768 vertical pixels are a joke once you've had 800... in that respect the standard resolution of 16:9 is already unacceptable which means once I am forced to buy a useless 16:9 screen I'll need to find a laptop that offers a higher resolution... on the downside... at 13,3", a 16:10 screen is about the same size as an A4 page - i.e. perfect for portability fits nicely into a bag with files.
With 16:9 the laptop would no longer be deep enough - just wide enough... grumble...

Ah well... that's life... I think we beat that issue death in the old thread though... 16:10 vs. 16:9 -> the only reason 16:10 found acceptance was, that it was an upgrade for most people. Only the high end people with large desktop monitors lost... now everybody looses...

 

it might actually be too wide. as a 16:9 screen with same diagonal length is more wide than a 16:10 one. in my bag where a 5:4 15" laptop fit in perfectly, nowadays only a 12" fits in.

 

Even if people buy laptops to be glorified video players - the question is, what harm do two black bars do? The answer, NONE.
Still it gets portrayed as something bad... great...

"look at this new business laptop - it's perfect for the analphabetic businessman - you can't read any documents on the screen but you can watch videos!!!"

Considering that education in the west is continually declining... that might be the reason behind the switch....

 

the reason behind the switch is just, screen manufacturers don't produce other screens. nothing with your hatress of the world.

 

And why do they do that? Because they are a criminal human species names capitalist that will exploit every last bit of profit.

 

no. because they're companies and they do what makes sense to them. having to manufacture different aspect ratios costs more. thus, those laptops would cost everyone more. and not just a bit, but quite much more. the unification of the process for all sort of screens from laptops to tvs to pc screens made their manufacturing processes much more straightforward, thus much more cheap.

so yes, your 16:9 screen is 10% less screen estate than the 16:10 screen. but the cost reduction is more than 10% actually. so you get more bang for the buck.

i still don't want that. but it makes perfect sense from a production standpoint. it has nothing to do with any complott or anything. it's just logical.

hopefully it'll change with oleds / qleds, as they might not have additional cost when creating different form factors.

 

-> How many 47" laptops are there and how many 13-17" TVs are there?

Having one production line for laptops and one for TVs shouldn't be too difficult - they are two hugely different screens in terms of size anyway.
I'd highly doubt they come of the same production line with the same process.

Also - if all laptops were 16:10 and all TVs were 16:9 the cost increase in laptops would be marginal due to the difference in aspect ratios.

 

well, dream on. they have documented it very well. and no matter how you about it, it won't change the fact that they did unify their production lines to be 16:9 only, and will be so in the near future at least.

 

More profit.
Same reason the quality of products drops... more profit.

 

it'll be most likely the last production line with 16:10 that does it for apple. the amount of 16:10 screens that get produced got reduced each year, so less and less supply is there. apple moved away from 16:10 in the desktop space, they will in the mobile space, too.

it's nice to see that they stay at 4:3 for the ipad. looks like they sell enough of those to get manufacturers to actually produce 4:3 screens. no other tablet gets that gift, as they're not guaranteed to sell enough.

 

-> That still doesn't make that change right/better/good - neither does clear documentation.

There is zero benefit to 16:9 over 16:10 except higher profit for the manufacturers.

And if people get annoyed at black bars in video - do I care? Any meaningful application benefits from screen height (within reason) - video is the ONLY application that "gains" from 16:9 - although it doesn't because black bars on 16:10 aren't a loss.

 

What's with the hate against the "West" education? First of all, there's no evidence of a decline in "West" education, but more importantly that has nothing to do with 16:10 to 16:9 screens.

 

-> 80 or 90% of the year in a uni course have to gain a pass in the UK, else the University faces fines?
That's ridiculous - if you have a bunch of idiots then they shouldn't pass. Period.

-> GCSE marks - exams get easier, and the most common number of marks is a C grade...

What kind of lunacy is that? The grades are distributed according to the results? i.e. if a whole year decided to submit blank GCSE papers, everybody would get a C....

-> In communist Poland the exams got harder every year.

In the west they get easier... additionally to that education gets more and more expensive -> obviously, if you pay a lot of money you need to have some sort of degree...
Make education free - if you fail, you fail. Period.

Next point:
How many people can sit down nowadays and read long pieces of text? -> fewer and fewer. That's a part of education, get people to be able to read well so they can read an comprehend a long text.


But what happens? Abbreviations from text messages get accepted in exams, language is destroyed by adolescents who do not read...
Manufacturers cater to the analphabets with icons everywhere and the educated have to suffer.
-> Everybody should be taught to read - and if for some reason you didn't learn it properly, well, the government should offer courses to allow you to learn it. Yes, I think there is this disability called dislexia - and if you really are dislexic (and not just too lazy to read) you have a valid reason for opposing long texts.

But right now everything is dumbed down into stupid icons and videos...
What use is a video to me? I want a WRITTEN manual.

 

well, it means cheaper products, too. which is, in the end, what the majority of customers want. so you get what you deserve. problem is, it makes 16:10 even more expensive, as they get rare => they get phased out completely.

i never said it's good. i just say it's logical, and the obvious thing to do. and as one can't change it, one can just do one thing: life with it.

he hates everything. the whole world. he's a lone person who has no life and no joy, and blames all sorts of politics and economics and everything else for his failure in having a good life. he's just a very very very sad person.

 

You have a point there.
But let's assume the change in screen aspect ratio made the screen 10€ cheaper to make. Assuming all else being equal, a new laptop would only become maybe 5€ cheaper at best.
Or maybe it will stay at the same price and they will claim that's the reduction, else the price would have increased with inflation by roughly 3% in the EU.

Additionally, 10€ or even 20€ are nothing with respect to the price of a laptop.
At 20€, with the average laptop starting around 400€ (and you possibly should spend a minimum of 500€ for decent performance & durability) it's about 5% of the sales price -> i.e. something you don't notice at all if you already go an buy a laptop.

-> I hate everything that is worse now if it was better before in the same country or somewhere else.
Why should I accept devolution?

 

because you can't accept change. most change you call devolution is not.

and btw, 16:9 screens often have a bigger diagonal (by some parts of an inch). same area, longer diagonal. as only the diagonal matters to customers (like megapixels and gigahertzs and stuff), they get "more for less".

 

-> Screens that are worse for productive work are not devolution?
Simpler exams/reduced requirements in education are not devolution?
Less and less education (Bologna Reform....) is not devolution?

Of course it is. The west is dismantling itself - the UK ahead of any other country, and Germany is doing its best to follow the UK (I don't know the details for other countries)

What else do you call it?

 

Anyways, the switch from 16:10 to 16:9 results in more profit for manufacturers. Manufacturers already make no money on the uber cheap models (299,399 laptops) so this is one way to cut costs. Some of those 299 laptops you could strip it for parts and resell and make more money actually. I just hate how the ENTIRE model lines went from 16:9, they could have left business notebooks alone.

 

I have a solution... buy apple, while I realize they likely will switch (which will make me very very sad), I can rock to my 16:10 screen (hopefully I can grab a 17incher with a 1920x1200!!).

I can accept change that doesn't mean i have to like it. and I can still resist!

 

Yeah its teasing me. I love their screens and the look isnt bad, but the price keyboard and OS make me sick. But still kudos to apple for keeping 16:10 alive.

 

Or you can get an old ThinkPad T60p with SXGA+ with IPS screen for 400-500 on Ebay.

 

There is one good things about the new Macs. They run Windows & Linux with bootcamp without issue. They are a viable option if price doesn't bother you and you don't need the most powerful graphics available.