The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Enough is enough. We need to join together and STOP the spread of these AWFUL 16:9 screens invading our beloved laptops. These screen Mfrs will learn that nobody gives a crap about watching movies on laptops and we will not suffer just because it saves them a few dollars to produce these junk 16:9 screens. 16:9 screened laptops are NOT laptops in reality. They are portable movie players that can run Windows OS. Productivity on these units are SO BAD due to lack of vertical screen size that it cripples web browsing, MS Office use, and most Apps out there.

For the first time in laptop history WE the people will pool together and abolish this idiotic and crippling design. They will hear our demands loud and they will know we will not stand for this.

Join me in the crusade against this intrusion. We will not suffer just because it saves them $2.00 per screen. They will hear us!!!

 

they heard, but they just don't care. because we simply have to use monitors.
as much as i hate 16:9, i realise that we can't do anything.

 

Count me in

 

too late, protests are irrevelant, you will be assimilated.

 

buy a Alienware......

 

Hahaha nice dog, Soviet Sunrise

LCD makers are not going to go back to the 4:3 standards. It's even amazing that the 16:10 standard still exists.

You can't say that "nobody" cares about watching movies on their laptops, even though personally I don't. Also, even though I much prefer 16:10 displays, I don't think 16:9 displays are as bad as some make it seem.

In fact, with 1600x900 screens, the extra width is put the good use (as compared to 1440x900 screens) - you can comfortably have two pages side by side in Word, which is valuable to me. So, my protest would be for the wide availability of 1600x900 screens on 14" laptops, such as the Dell Studio 14z.

 

I strongly ask for the return of 4:3 screens. Every time I use a wide screen they just seem so ugly and so inconvenient. In my opinion wide screen is ok only for large screens like 17" or more. For small, portables, they are absolutely aweful and impractical.

 

Clevo's are all still 16:10 as well.

 

The soon to launch M980NU is in 16:9 and the upcoming successors to the M570TU and M860TU, the W870CU and W860CU, will be in 16:9.

 

Since the reason to discontinue 4:3 is that the manufacturers want to make more money, they can always continue making 4:3 and charge extra $$ for those of us who are willing to pay to get 4:3. They may even make more money that way. They need to be enlightened and see this great opportunity

p.s. Soviet Sunrise: the piece of paper your dog is holding should be cut more squared, in 4:3

 

Um, you get more screen realestate with equivalent 16:9/16:10 compared to 4:3. They don't chop pixels off the top and bottom, they add them to the left and right. And as to productivity, everything I've heard and read shows that more screen realestate=more productivity. Even for working on documents/code/etc. For instance, you are much more productive if you are working on something and have reference materials up along side rather than in a window underneath what you are working on.

What gets me is the 16:9 replacing 16:10. I don't care how much marketing they do about "true cinema 1080p" or whatever, when you reduce my vertical resolution by 10% (because when they go from 16:10 to 16:9 they DO cut off pixels), you are giving me less value. I really hope that some companies stick with 16:10 screens. It will be something I concider when I buy a laptop or monitor from now on.

 

Haha, I knew you were going to say something like that.

 

pricing margins what they are, it takes millions of production units to break even on R&D and production.

I don't even want to think of how expensive a 4:3 screen would be in production runs of 10,000 per year (and less).

 

There are still quite a few 16:10 displays, especially among business notebooks:

Dell Vostro (except A860), Latitude & Precision
Lenovo ThinkPads
Toshiba Satellite (except A350/A355), Satellite Pro, Tecra & Portege
HP EliteBook, Pavilion dv5tse, dv4t & G70t
HP Compaq (business)

That's not all-inclusive, but the ones that I can think of at the moment!

 

I, too, am sick of the trend of making all new notebook displays 16:9. When the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 was made, it was great because for the most part, all resolutions gained horizontally, e.g. 1024x768 > 1280x768 or 1280x800...1600x1200 > 1920x1200, etc. Now it's the opposite...the displays are getting "wider", but we lose vertical pixels instead. What used to be 1920x1200 is now 1920x1080, and people buy into it because it's OMG FULL HD 1080P!!!!

Of course, there are some cases where pixels are gained, like 1440x900 > 1600x900, but I still think the 16:9 aspect ratio is not as ideal for everyday computing tasks. It's just too wide for stuff like viewing web pages and forums. Sure, you can have two document pages side by side, but you could do that with 16:10 too, so it's nothing new.

 

... and this is where my 14" T61 (4:3) shines

1400x1050 FTW

 

1400x1050 < 1680x1050.

 

I AM IN!!!!

16:9 is inconvenient for business applications and programming; they are robbing us of pixels!!!

 

Dell recently replaced my defective Studio 1535 (15.4" 1440x900) with a Studio 1555 (15.6" 1600x900). In my case, there was no loss of vertical pixels, just a horizontal increase. But the extra width of the 16:9 system makes it feel bigger than a 15" laptop should. Much like 16.0" 16:9 models have the look/feel of larger 17.0" 16:10 desktop replacements.

 

Meh I use 16:9 at home on my desktop and on my laptop at work. Does not limit me or inconvenience me in any way. But it is quite nice for games and movies.

1920x1080 here, lost 120 pixels vert vs 1920x1200 but screen size is larger so better for movies and things.

 

I looove my 16:9 screen I am a big movie lover and I depend on my laptop to watch DVD and Blu-ray. I have neither the space nor the money to spend on a big screen TV or any size of TV for that matter.

I have been using my 16:9 screen for about 9 months and I must say I couldn't live without it. It is [email protected]". It is perfect for both watching movies and do my work. Fewer percentage of screen real estate is wasted for black bars when watching movies. If you do the math, my 16:[email protected]" is just as big as 16:10@17" when being used for watching movies. So, I have the advantage of having a lighter notebook while still having the same screen real estate of a 17" notebook.

It is still great for doing my work with Excel. Having 900 lines vertically is good enough for me. Having a wide 1600 lines horizontally is more important for my Excel and my other work.

After using my 16:9 screen for 9 months, I wouldn't even consider any other notebook with a different aspect ratio.

 

Panasonic still sells 4:3 for small portable notebooks:
http://www.dynamism.com/#Product=panasonic_r
http://www.dynamism.com/#Product=panasonic_w
http://www.dynamism.com/#Product=panasonic_y
http://www.dynamism.com/#Product=panasonic_t

 

My problem with "wide screen" is not that they are wide, but that they are short. I don't mind there are extra space horizontally, but I am bothered that there are not enough space vertically. Looking at a 12" wide screen I feel like I'm looking at a partial screen, really! As if the top of the screen has been covered by a sheet of black paper.

By the way, the other say I was watching a video on my wide screen, and the video was something like 4:3, so the left and right sides of the screen were a total waste. Wide screen is not good even for watching videos.

To those who advocate wide screen: we are not asking for converting all screens back to 4:3. We just want CHOICE. You can still have your wide screens, but give us our preference, too, please.

 

Yeah, I want 16:10. More specifically, I want 1920x1200 on my 15" laptop (for working space) and on my 36" TV, because I like having menus and subtitles displayed without obscuring the main video content. I will not buy any 16:9 products.

 

16:9 is fine for HDTV's, because that's what it's meant for. Notebook computers are NOT HDTV's!

 

And there are more to do with a laptop than just watching movies.

 

Exactly. If you want to watch movies on your notebook so badly, then you should be able to handle half an inch of black bars at the top and bottom.

 

The funny thing is, there are still black bars with the 16:9!
Pathetic I say!

 

Lets see in real life how big a difference this is. I'll go to page 1 of this thread, make sure I am scrolled all the way to the top and take a screen shot and come back and post it here. (as a thumbnail *hint* Soviet) then somebody on a 1920x1200 screen do the same. Lets see just how ground breaking those few vertical pixels are.

I already know its not going to be a big deal and how hard is it to vertically scroll when you need too? You CAN move up and down aka scroll when needed but when viewing 16:9 material on a 16:10 screen you CANT do a thing about the black bars and loss of screen space, considering a laptop screen is already small in the first place thats a loss of very valuable screen space.

 

It's not just about reading text. 3D rendering or photo editing is better with more pixels.

 

Press F11 on firefox for full screen, go to the first page of the thread and post back your results, let me show you with proof how small the difference is rather than babble going back and forth.

From Misc

 

Your talking to the guy who bought the W90 mainly or photoshop and video editing with the 6gb of ram and quad core cpu.

The loss of pixels has never hindered my work EVER. I know how to scroll in both if needed and I dont produce videos in 16:10 format I make 16:9 videos...

Also I happen to appreciate the LARGER size of the pixels makes things easier to see.

Resolution does not = size just pixels on screen. Working with photo/video seeing what your doing is just as important as the number of pixels on screen.

Just means I can work on the same item without zooming in as far as you, and when you zoom in to see the detail you just reduced your visible pixels.

 

Fair enough, but that's just you.
Video editing is something else different from the other two. Your preference of the photo editing is subjective, and many people would prefer otherwise.

 

Here's a very good article on the subject by Lance Ulanoff over at PC Magazine- LINK.

 

Funny nobody posted a comparison shot yet so we can see just how large a difference everybody is bickering over.

I can just do it in photoshop if you make me.

 

I prefer wide screen, its so much more natural for my eyes

 

Um, it's 10%. It's not that hard at all. 10% is not a ton, but it is significant. 1080 is exactly 10% smaller than 1200. 9 is exactly 10% smaller than 10. On my screen, each line of text on NBR forums is roughly 15 pixels high (including padding). That's 8 lines of text less on my WUXGA screen, 7 lines less on my WSXGA+ screen. I want the space.

Also, keep in mind that a 17" 16:9 screen is actually smaller than a 17" 16:10 screen (the futher from perfect square you get, the less surface area there is per diagonal inch). People go "oh... 18"!!" But in reality, they get less screen realestate and roughly equal screen surface area. It is a lose lose from any perspective.

 

Here you go, ViciousXUSMC. Saved in PNG.

 

I do have a WUXGA screen, but my point of argument isn't about text reading, so I don't see why I should post it.

 

here it is a 1920x1200 shot with the red area being the pixels lost in 16:9 1920x1080.

Do you really think that loss is huge? Is it going to change your life and how you work?

Again this is pixels, it has no relation to size, having a 17" display with 16:9 and a 17" display with 16:10 the screen size is the same but the pixel size is larger on the 16:9 meaning what you see is larger.

This means things are easier to read, and while editing its easier to see details.

I cant count how many times I have seen people complain about things being too small and hard to read on a larger resolution display, now here is the first step in helping that. Reduce the resolution just a bit and have it in a new aspect that works well with movies/games and does not hinder web/editing at all.

From Misc

You should be much more concerned with panel quality than the aspect ratio of it. If you would turn down a great machine like the W90 just because it had a 16:9 screen you would only be hurting/foolinng yourself.

In the above example I would still need to scroll down to read the next comment, so the loss was not of importance. Horizontal scrolling is the worst and in the case of 1920x1080 vs 1920x1200 the horizontal resolution is the same, so no worries there.

 

True but that only applies for older TV series and programs. Newer TV series like 24, Heroes, Lost and Alias are made exactly for 16:9 screen which is why most TVs sold today are 16:9.

Feature film has wider aspect ratio but still fewer percentage of screen real estate is wasted with a 16:9 screen than with 16:10 screen.

Here's a table for the percentage of screen real estate wasted for 16:9 compare to 16:10 (rounded to the nearest percentage).

 

Again, what you said is subjective. Things look different in different eyes. I have no problem reading with 1200p, things appear to be nice and smooth.

 

What is it about then? photo editing? I do 95% of my editing zoomed in way past the pixel 1:1 ratio 16:9 and 16:10 will work the same for me for that reason.

 

I don't do much photo editing but now and then 3D rendering. The loss of pixel is really annoying.
Also, I do appreciate the vertical space when I write codes.

 

writing codes sounds like reading text, and you just said thats not what this is about.

Also its apparent from your sig, your brutally biased against 16:9 screens, while everybody knows I always have a neutral stance in a comparison or debate and have no bias at all. I just weigh the facts and then evaluate them.

 

I can live with any resolution, but give me a bleeping good screen. Give me a screen where it doesn't darken when you go a bit off angle. Give me a screen with good contrast. Don't hype LED screens, while they offer some benefits, better image quality and viewing angles ain't among them. For those reasons, I'll be sticking with my IPS R60 for the foreseeable future, which happens to be 4:3. I don't need a ton of performance.

 

Um, vicious, you are completely off base. It's basic geometry. The further off a perfect square a quadrilateral is, the lower the ratio between surface area and diagonal (or any other axis for that matter) measurement becomes. A 17" 16:9 screen is measurably smaller in surface area than a 17" 16:10 screen. By that same token, a 17" 4:3 screen is measurably larger in surface area than a 17" 16:10 screen. Look it up. A wider aspect ratio screen of the same diagonal dimension will have a smaller surface area than a narrower aspect ratio (until you pass 1:1).

And no one said anything about turning down a machine purely because of a 16:9 screen, but it will be a factor to be concidered. I know every time I opened up a laptop claiming WUXGA that was 1920X1080, I'd feel slightly ripped off. That would be something I'd have to concider in a purchasing decision.

 

I said I appreciate the vertical space, not that I mind scrolling up and down if I have to. It's subjective, same as your preference of moving the scrolling bar.