Sandy-Bridge = The death of 1920x1200 screens?

I've been waiting for the Sandy Bridge architecture refresh to come along, and the Alienware leak at first glance was exciting... then I measured the screen: exactly 16 x 9 units proportion in the picture. Alienware was my first pick for months due to it's 1920x1200 screen. I do a lot of programming, and screen real-estate is crucial. I'm just shocked and dismayed that this high-performance machine is getting it's screen neutered to an inferior 'status quo'.

By my count that leaves a total of two possible manufacturers (and no leaks yet on what their form-factors will bring w/ Sandy Bridge): HP EliteBook and MacBook Pro. I deeply do not want a MacBook as it lacks the versatility in port configuration, etc. Yet, now it's the _least_ expensive option with a 1920x1200 screen. (assuming they keep the same basic price points in their next refresh).

I'm not happy about giving the Jobsian cult any more hard-earned cash, but it's seeming my hands are increasingly tied.

Can someone give me some additional insight on potential manufacturers that are remaining committed to the 16x10 screen perspective?

 

Considering how long it'll be before mac books are gonna get the refresh, you might as well just get a last gen alienware if macbooks are your next best choice. Mind you, I don't think too highly of alienware...

 

Most Lenovo Thinkpads are still 16:10.

 

And with Sandy Bridge they moving to 16:9.

 

Yep so sad. Glad I will be one of the last with 16:10. Let's hope they don't go 2:1. :O

 

Don't forget about MSI... hopefully their gx640 and gx740 refresh will still be 16:10...

 

if you need the extra space, set the dpi scaling lower

 

6 months ago, I was in the market for a new top rate ThinkPad. But I was so upset with the idea of investing ~11,000 shekels ($2.5-3K) in what was being offered at that time, that I decided instead to buy a much cheaper model (the cheapest SL510) as a stopgap, and hope that better things came out in 2011.

Two things upset me: the 16:9 screen, and the heat from a model with a GPU but no switchable graphics. So it looks like the 2nd problem is going to be solved: I assume that the SB graphics well be sufficient for my needs and i won't need a dedicated graphics card. But it's going to need a miracle of kindness from the LCD manufacturers to give us back our 16:10 screens.

- avi

 

No, only T410 and T410s (14") and W701 (17") are 16:10. They will likely die in early 2011.

I suppose Miracle does not care about aspect ratio. Maybe feeding the hungry and tending the sick? And the manufactures? Profit only.

 

What does a CPU/GPU refresh have to do with screen aspect?

 

The phenomenon is called "synchronicity".

 

It would be nice if the industry will move back to 16:10. However, if 16:9 is here to stay, I hope that laptop resolutions higher than 1080p will emerge soon, e.g. 2048x1152 (which is available on several 23" desktop LCD monitors.)

 

Doubtful as marketing only goes up to 1080p (until they market 1152p)!

 

Such resolutions only make sense with such physical display sizes!

Although I enjoy 15" 1920x1080 for images, reading tiny texts can be a pain. Unless I do side-by-side listings, I have the texts scaled up automatically by Word and Chrome.

 

2048x1152 makes sense for 16.4" and larger laptops.

 

One of my notebooks is a 17" WUXGA 1920x1200. I know the "pain".

 

Different strokes for different folks. Personally I hate 1920x1200 on laptops because i cant read the text without zooming in or increasing DPI... which leads to other qwerks.

 

according to apple, if it's greater than approximately 300dpi, the human eye cannot tell the difference, but so far, the vaio z with the 13.1 inch screen and 1920x1080 is only around half that (from what i remember), so only once resolutions for 13 inch laptops reach 2500p will higher resolutions really be unnecessary

 

It's also more of something to consider on an individual basis, since I'm sure all people don't sit the exact same distance away from their screens.

I'm going to miss 16:10 screens. Right now I have two 16:9, one 16:10, and one 4:3 laptop. Regardless of resolution I prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio.

 

I dont care much about the ratio, the only thing i hate is having the same resolution as TVs, back in the day you had almost 5 times more than the usual TV, and then the monitors got stalled and TV caught up, by the industry i would have liked if PC had the option of 2k or even 4k res, if its not in laptops at least on desktop monitors

 

I am using 1920 x 1080 on a 17", and I have my text enlarged to medium. I wouldn't want a res much higher than this.

 

Arrg...

I'm looking for 13 or 14" 16:10 and figured waiting for early 2011 machines would be a worthwhile wait.... apparently not then

I'm guessing that i5, switchable gfx, decent battery and 16:10 isn't going to be an option then.

 

If you want to play games or watch movies ONLY go for lower resolution else for work higher resolution is MUST and can be the deal breaker. For a laptop 15" or more full HD is a must.

 

Well said. Even on a 1920x1080 screen, many PDF documents can't be viewed full page at 100% zoom. That's why I bought my Dell Latitude D820 with 1920x1200 for serious work. To me, the screen is the most important component of a computer, and my Dell OptiPlex GX280 desktop at work is driving four premium Dell monitors: a 3008WFP (2560x1600), a 2408WFP (1920x1200 in portrait mode), and two 2407WFP's (also 1920x1200 in portrait mode).

 

Aside from the HP EliteBook, the Dell Precision M6500 also offers an option for 1920x1200. I think the 1920x1200 resolution is reserved for "business" notebooks where they can charge a premium compared to the consumer notebooks.

 

The whole latest range of large ThinkPads, e.g., the T510, W510, and the humble SL510 are all 16:9.

I bought an SL510 a few months ago coz I didn't want to invest $2K - $3K on an infuriating 16:9 (and NVIDEA heat machine). I decide to buy the cheapest ThinkPad I could, as a stopgap, and bide my time until SB came out (and so I don't need a GPU, so less heat) and hope for a miracle that a quality make (HP/DELL/TP) comes as 16:10

- avi

 

I'll be happy with 16:9 once I can get a 15.6" with 2048x1152 or higher.

 

Yep, I too praised the 2048x1152 resolution earlier in this thread. Have you used this resolution? I have a Dell sp2309w and think 2048x1152 is even better than 1920x1200. Side-by-side viewing is soooooooo easy.

 

1920x1200
or
1920x1080

IMHO, ain't we talking about 120pixels?!
60 on top and 60 pixels on the bottom of the screen... not too much contact can be used by that....

 

No we're not talking about 120 pixels... we're talking about 120 pixels x 1920

 

I'm a classical Gnome user, which means I have two panels - one on the top, one on the bottom. with a 1920x1200-screen, I can run a virtual machine in a maximized window (not full screen) that has a perfect 16:9 desktop of 1920x1080. That means I can run virtual machines with a common resolution and still keep an eye on the most important data about my host system, which is displayed in the Gnome panels.

 

It's an 11% difference. On 1920x1200, I can view virtually all PDF documents in full page view at 100% magnification. On 1920x1080, most PDF documents need to be viewed at ~90%. In other words, that 11% makes a huge difference for document and text applications.

 

Yeah...I really don't understand why the 16:10 screens are disappearing. I've only met one person who actually prefers 16:9, and I think he's just caught up in the marketing of it.

 

i actually also prefer 16:9, because everything now is 16:9 (videos, pictures), if everything were 16:10 i would prefer 16:10, but this is not the case

 

Screens get cheaper the more you stretch them.
Screens are sold by diagonal, not by pixel count. But the laptop and monitor manufacturers buy the panels by pixel count. The more you increase the width:height ratio, the less pixels you need to pay for to get the same diagonal at the same resolution*. If screens were sold by megapixels like cameras, the whole problem wouldn't exist.

*) Actual resolution, not what is usually mistaken for resolution in connection with displays.

 

Any reports of any Sandy Bridge notebook with 1920x1200?

 

I prefer 4:3

 

16:10 has been dead for years, it should come as no surprise new notebooks are all 16:9. It's unfortunate but true.

Nope. Apparently all SB notebooks are 16:9. Even the HP EliteBook 17" is going 16:9.

So, either buy a used notebook or grab an HP 8740w, Dell M6500, Alienware M17x R2, or Lenovo W710 while you can.

 

Yes: the 17" MacBookPro that just came out today. But of course, it's Apple so be prepared to shell out $2.5K+ for it.

 

I typically shell out a lot more for a Dell Precision, but then I get a capable computer for my money, not an Apple toy. Sorry, couldn't resist...

Unfortunately, the new SB Precisions, including the M6600, are now 16:9, too. Confound'em!

 

Will someone please tell me how 16:9 vs 16:10 really REALLY matters.

 

some people really like the extra 120 pixels of extra vertical space you get with 16:10

 

Yeah let's not start this argument again, thanks. The arguments haven't changed -- use Google to search the forums.

 

+1 but Fedora

Also my desktop screen does 3840 x 2400, now THAT'S real estate.

 

I have hesitated getting a new laptop because of 1920x1200. A new SB laptop may cost me 3,500 plus for a G73 and an extreme etc. so maybe it is time to just build a desktop again.

2560x1600 sounds great on a 30" but what are you running 3840x2400 on, I saw some 22" but aren't those some tiny pixels?

 

I guess it's a 2x2 matrix of 4 1920x1200 monitors.

 

And mine has 11 megapixels: one 30" 2560x1600, and three 24" 1920x1200.

But back to the question asked earlier: 1920x1200 versus 1920x1080 matters, because the latter is only 90% of the former.

 

Any source for this. I was really hoping the DC screen remained. Maybe they'll sell an even higher res for the 17.3" elitebook. (Dream on!)

 

The 15" DC screen is already 16:9 and since the change in size for the new 17" is 17.3", it's also 16:9.

 

It's an IBM T221 22" Monitor

Ibm t221 - the world's finest monitor?- The Inquirer