Does somebody besides Apple still use 16:10 ratio instead of 16:9?

Hello guys,

I would like to ask if there is some notebook manufactor which still use 16:10 ratio for their displays besides Apple. For example I mean 15.4 instead of 15:6 which I found absolutely horrible. I know macbook pro and 13 inch macbook air have 16:10 but that is all I was able to find. Everything else is unfortunately 16:9.

So my question is if there are still some new laptops with 16:10 ratio and if not what are your predictions for future? Will industry get back to 16:10 again in or not?

Thank you so much

 

Many business class notebooks like from HP and Dell offer 16:10 screens, but even those have been more or less phased out. Some Toughbooks still come with 4:3 screens.

16:9 is here to stay for mainstream unfortunately. It's cheaper to manufacture.

 

Thank you. Please where can I find for example 16:10 HP laptops? When I look at their sites I cant find any. They are all 15.6 etc but not 15.4

 

I think he meant to look at laptops from the previous generation. Except for Apple, there are no recent 16:10 laptops.

 

Ah sorry. I hate how manufactors think. It is just stupid.

Do you think Apple will go into 16:9 as well in the future?

 

Probably, you already see 16:9 panels on some of their macbooks. I don't mind 16:9 that much, i do mind the horrible 1366x768 panels manufacturers slap in 14" and 15" notebooks. 16:10 gives you more vertical real estate, 16:9 is nicer if you want to work with two windows side by side.

 

I highly suspect Apple is going to fully roll out 16:9 when Ivy Bridge is launched as the 11" Macbook Air and iMac's are already 16:9, there is no incentive for Apple to keep 16:10 alive in their lineup anymore.

 

All of the current Elitebooks and even the Precision/Latitude have switched over to the 16:9, but if that is a must for you I would recommend getting the HP Elitebook 8740w or the Dell Precision M6500 from a reliable reseller on eBay as both fit your requirement. I would give up on the 1920x1200 hunt in the mainstream market, simply because they are just not offered anywhere anymore.

Apple still offers that ratio but they charge heavily for it and the 17" Macbook Pro is the only one that still has the 1920x1200 screen, but I think this is the last year that they will be offering it. You can still get the laptop models I discussed above, "unused" but you'll have to pay a price for them. I don't think any of the current Sandy Bridge laptop would offer it outside of Apple.

 

I've heard that 16:9 is cheaper to manufacture before, but never an explanation as to why.

I understand that part of the reason is simply as a selling point as it's standard wide screen format but I see no reason as to why it would be cheaper to make.

 

Oddly enough there is a sizable production of 10" 16:10 (1280x800) displays, it almost seems standard for tablets of that size.

Would be an interesting option in a premium netbook (IPS) even though the former has way more hype.

 

You can make more panels with the same amount of materials, at least for the higher resolutions like 1920x1080 instead of 1920x1200.

 

Simply because each screen uses less material to make. For example, say we have a sheet of LCD panel that's 1920 pixels wide and 1,296,000 pixels wide. You can either make 1,080 16:10 panels (1920*1200) or you can make 1,200 16:9 panels (1920*1080). The factory makes more revenue off of selling the 16:9 panels, and because material costs are the same between the two (same 1920*1,296,000 sheet), they get more profit.

 

16:9 monitors are cheaper to produce because the producers can use the same panels and more other components for monitors and TV:s. Far more many 16:9 monitor/TVs than 16:10 TV/monitors are being produced so there are simply better economies of scale when producing 16:9 displays.

16:9 isnt smaller than 16:10 and doesnt have fewer pixels. 1920x1080 (16:9) is cheaper to produce than 1680x1050(16:10).

 

Glass, that's the reason why. Pixels can be set to any range but glass determines the size and shape. As someone said you can fit more 16 x 9 glass panels from the same sheet of glass. Samsung doesn't make glass as well as LCDs, they usually buy their glass from 1 giant glass company that cut the sizess ordered. Once they did the math and found out 16 x 9 is cheaper and therefore offered cheaper prices to Samsung, LG for 16 x 9 they inturn took cheaper pricing. The pricing isn't usually passed on to customers but it changed our choices as to what's available.

 

Apparently it's thriving in the tablet market, I mean I heard recently that Samsung made a 2560x1600 (16:10) resolution for a 6.1" tablet they plan on releasing in the near future. I mean wow, where are they going to find a battery to power that thing.

 

why can't I get that in a laptop screen??

 

I wish man, I would love to have a 2560x1600 even a 1920x1200 in a laptop, I understand them stripping it from mainstream but they shouldn't jeopardize the people that use a workstation or who design for a living. At the very, they could offer the 2560x1440 (16:9) alternative, you know that way everyone can be happy.

 

I love my 1200x1920 15.4 screen, except how dim it is....

 

I might just get a refurbished Precision 6500M or Elitebook 8740w because of the gains in screen space as opposed to giving up a 120 pixels. But it depends on what is released this coming year w/the Ivy Bridge platform.

 

2560x1440 lap tops (ultrabooks) will be released Q1-Q2 2012.

 

Sounds exciting, but do you have a source?

 

Except all those small screen tablets with supposed high resolution panels are having difficulty with their sources in actually producing enough... I'm kind of hesitant of whatever source you are using.

 

This analysis seems spot on, but the economics are simply not sufficiently compelling to tell the whole story. We're talking about around a 10% cost advantage to producing 16:9 vs. 16:10 ratio screens, with screens overall representing no more than 20% of the cost of the average laptop (guess). It makes no sense at all that manufacturers would force an unappealing form factor onto the market to shave some 2% from the manufacturing cost.

What is a more important cost factor is that manufacturers save a great deal by having the same ratio across all models of a given size class. Thus, it's got to be 16:10 or 16:9, not some of each. Why 16:9 has won out is likely to be a result of the increased use of notebook computers to watch HD movies and the superior presentation of an image without black stripes on top and bottom. Seems like a terrible reason to make computer screens less useful to those of us who use them primarily for "work," lol, but I do think it's an either/or thing and that the majority of consumers want their computers to have "movie screens" than to have 10% more vertical space for textual content.

Personally, I prefer the 16:10 format, but I think we who do are in a vast minority (though vocal on forums like NBR) and, to be honest, owning computers with both screen formats, it really isn't much of a difference. 10% more vertical space is easily attainable with minimal zoom adjustment.

 

Details. NOW!

 

Source. Now.

Also, by what calendar? Fiscal, if so which country?

 

You would think that at some point the general public would realise that a laptop which is more than twice as wide as it is tall would be inconvenient.

To me I do sometimes feel that 16:10 is a little nicer for PC use but my main computer is 16:9 and it's not that much different in feel. After a while you just get used to it.

 

It is unfortunate, but that's how it works. Add to that, the fact that a lot of people don't really understand resolution vs screen size and you have an onslaught of crappy 1366x768 panels in 15.6" form factor. Try explaining to someone that a pixel doesn't have a set size and that it's size depends on the screen's native res and size...

The tech aware crowd will always end up being at the mercy of the general consumer crowd as far as laptops go. Honestly, the move to 16:9 didn't bother me as much as i'd expected it to. I suppose i adapted, i'd still like a good 1200p lcd over me 1080p one though.

 

16:9 laptops aren't an impractical shape though. Their exterior dimensions are almost identical to 16:10 laptops. The problem with 21:9 laptops would be that they would just be a comepletely silly shape to the point that you wouldn't have anywhere to put a trackpad or speakers, or anything else.

 

I do believe manufacturers waste space with overly large bezels and they could probably shave off the size on the larger models without sacrificing keyboard and touchpad space. On an unrelated note, numpads were available on some 15.4" models in the good old days of 16:10 lcds.

Yes that would indeed be silly, imagine slider laptops for the TP and keyboard just like some smartphones .