The official 16:9 screen protest thread

My Vaio SZ at 1280 is 113.49 PPI
A Z at 1600*900 is 140.13 PPI
A 14,1" screen is:
1440*900 120.43 PPI - that's 16:10
What's a 14,1" screen in 16:9??

But I don't think much smaller than 113 PPI would be legible for me.
And I don't want to loose any height in my next laptop to come some day - not a single pixel.

 

I find this thread amusing, actually

I can't believe some folks get so heated over the difference b/w 16:10 and 16:9.

lol

 

16:10 is already bad enough. Going to 16:9 is just another punch in the gut.

 

I could care less as I don't notice the diff b/w 16:10 and 16:9.

I am def glad that we have moved on from 4:3 though

 

I hate 4:3 screens. 16:9 or 16:10 is fine. There's not much difference between the last two to be honest.

 

Obviously you are new to laptops...while I on the other hand have been using laptop for 12 years.

 

I'm fine with my 16:10 laptop screen and my 16:9 desktop screen.

What I'm wondering is that, if by some chance companies increased the amount of horizontal pixels instead of decreasing vertical pixels, would we get nearly as many complaints?

 

Maybe... but maybe not.

Another potential issue is palmrests.

Again, no problem on large laptops, but quite an issue on small laptops.

 

If you wanted palmrests, 4:3 would've been the one that gives the most. With every passing aspect ratio, we've been losing on the vertical space vs horizontal space ratio. Seems that rectangles are more "in" than squares lol .

 

I've never quite understood why some people are so determined to eliminate 4:3 displays, even as a choice for those poor misguided people like myself who want one.

 

I believe you wouldn't. The only problem though it's not as easy as taking a 16:10's vertical resolution and converting it into a 16:9 resolution....it doesn't work out in every case.

900 vertical pixels works out to match up between 16:10 and 16:9 because you can get a whole pixel as a horizontal value in each ratio.

900/10 = 90
90*16=1440

900/9 = 100
100*16 = 1600

However try that with 1280x800, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200 pixels and you end up with fractions of a pixel which you can't have. You want a whole square pixel.

800/9 = 88.89
88.89*16 = 1422.24

Trying to use .24 pixels is like turning on 1/4 of a lightbulb.

You could use 810 vertical pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio but then people would whine that 1440x810 is a 90 pixel loss vs. 1440x900. No one would ever believe you that it's a 160 pixel horizontal gain and a 10 pixel vertical gain over the 1280x800 you were trying to convert from 16:10 to 16:9.

 

Well I have been using laptops for over 20 years

 

I love this subject because it's one of the only topics where I get to take on the role of the optimist.

It's a total role reversal. Bizzaro Superman saves the World.

 

OH REALLY? 12 YEARS? I hope that I'm as cool as you are four years from now.

Instead of actually making a constructive argument, or making a comment that actually had some intellectual value, you told me that you know more than I do because you've used computers for 12 years and I don't like 4:3 screens.

Aspect ratio is a completely personal preference.

 

Not really as the aspect ratio is only a matter of personal preference as long as minimum conforts of computer usage are not negatively affected by said aspect ratio.

This means that a minimum pixel height - at a resolution that is easily legible should be given, as well as useable palmrest.
Both can easily be a problem on smaller protable machines once you arrive in the 13" market.

The minimum pixel height is important for productivity, as most programmes are laid out for "height" not width, primarily because this is a shorter ditance to travel.
Imagine the MS office menu in vertical fashion - buttons are further away from the text than in a horizontal fashion.
What's more, we are used to reading from left to right in the "western world" - I beleive Arabic and Hebrew as well as Chinese and other Asian languages may be different. (right to left and top to bottom).
But computers originate in the US I believe.

In this case, 16:9 is generally a loss - not a gain - and the fact that I have a few more pixels to the side is useless as they do absolutely nothing.

 

I get your argument but all that is still your personal preference

 

Again, this is personal preference.

I would much rather be able to look at a document as though it were laid out in front of me in book form rather than have the screen focused on a single page and see more vertically.

 

Phinagle, i couldn't care less about dpi. as far as i can see, 1080<1200, 1152<1200. my ipod has super high dpi, still sucks.

 

Then you can't see very far and might even have tunnel vision.

 

i am short sighted. but what's this have to do with dpi?

 

"abolish this idiotic and crippling design."
Absolutely true.

If they don't want to give up 16:9 stupidity, at least they can do pivot feature somehow

 

So you admit it. :wink:


If you mean near sighted then you should care more about DPI.

 

And why?

I'm short sighted too, nowadays wear glasses at home -3.0 and -2.5 and even wih glasses wouldn't like a higher DPI.

But not lower either.

 

No one here gets puns huh?

 

i don't.
i don't mind high dpi, if the panel makers can make a cheap 24inch wqxga monitor then i'll jump on it. i just like big numbers.

 

No, sorry.

And if you are short sighted it generally isn't a problem.
(esepcially on laptops, except when your eyesight is quite bad)

 

The pun(at least the one I see) is that short sighted can mean closed-minded and not open to new things(least where I come from).

Anyhow, at the end of the day, it's all personal preference as to whether or not you like the switch. You can bring numbers all you want, but the fact is that we've been losing vertical space(in ratio to horizontal space) ever since the first screens came out soooo...

 

Nearsighted means you've got vision problems. Shortsighted can be used to mean you're nearsighted but it can also mean you lack foresight.


16:9 allows for more pixels in smaller screen areas but that also means that in an equal screen area it can make comparable resolutions more readable because of the DPI count.

A DPI of 90 is easier to read than a DPI of 128. If you're nearsighted getting a notebook with a lower DPI (by either going for a lower resolution or a larger screen) is easier on your eyes.

 

Well, maybe.

But a near sighted person with corrected vision will see the same as a normal sighted person.

And a near sighted person with un-corrected vision will probably just sit closer to the display, in which case a higher DPI would be acceptable.

Anyway, all this really does boil down to personal preference. We can do calculations till we are blue in the face, and it won't convince either side.

And that's OK. Who am I to tell you that blue is a prettier color than red ?

 

Wow.

Now this thread needs an Optometrist to step in......

 

Im very near sighted. Higher DPI screens are NOT acceptable for people with poor vision. High DPI screens are simply awful to use if I dont have my glasses or contacts. Higher DPI screens cause heavy eye strain due to the smaller focal point. This is why most companies use 19" SXGA monitors due to thier low DPI.

 

what? if you have a higher dpi, then it's harder to read period.
also i can see the benefits of higher dpi, but 16:9 hasn't brought it, the highest res available is 2048*1152. until a higher res display is made, 16:9 still suck.

 

I'm near sighted too, iGrim.

 

im pretty sure they do it because it's cheap.

 

Incorrect.

 

Really? Makes sense to me that businesses wants to cut cost. Or they could use a smaller display and just turn down (or is it up) the dpi. Now I'm really confused.

 

If you ask me, a therapist might be a better choice. It would seem some hand holding for the people that are pining for the loss of their beloved square box would be welcome about now. In fact, I'm surprised all of you ever accepted LCD. After all, don't CRTs trump them in ever technical way?

 

Well, CRTs need less electricity when it comes to TVs and the stupid EU decided to ban them in favour of more energy hungry plasma an LCD dsplays...
To save the environment...

Obviously a CRT monitor won't work for a laptop, thus LCD or anything flat really was the obvious choice.

And sthe change from 16:10 to 16:9 is different - simply because you loose on the produtivity side.
Computer (display) manufacturers possibly think laptops are only meant for watching movies and not work.

 

LCDs are much more energy efficient than CRTs.

It seems like this thread is never gonna die, so I'll say this again:

4:3 to 16:10 was to shape laptops better (less palmrest/bigger keyboards).

16:10 to 16:9 is for setting one standard (btwn computers and TVs) and to cut costs.

We can keep talking about eyestrain and nearsightedness, but it is the way it is.

 

CRTs scaled better than LCDs though in general and a good CRT screen was crisp and clear as some of the best laptop LCDs.

I have a question though Lithus. OI understand those conversions for laptops, but for desktops and TVs, it's not the same is it?

I mean, from 4:3 to 16:10, there is no palmrest nor real shape difference for desktop LCDs or TVs. I'd think they also changed these to have one standard no? So in the end, reducing costs and having one standard always was a form of motivation.

 

The problem is though, comapanies often tend to reduce production costs, but keep the sales price...

So the consumer doesn't get anything...

 

Prices on laptops are constantly dropping, now to the point where it is literally impossible to fall anymore. You can find laptops (not netbooks, but actual brand-new laptops) for $299-$399 now, so to say that companies are doing this to exploit customers is insane.

 

Yes you can - but not the "mainline" companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo etc.

Computers from Compaq (owned by HP?) and Packard Bell, etc.

The problem is, they can be good or bad - in terms ofbuild quality.

And yes, computers do get cheaper, but I doubt its because of the screen.

And if they do, then only because other companies decided to offer cheaper "No name" models - and if your product costs more than twice as much at the same spec, well obviously you won't get many customers.

 

Profits on laptops are razorthin. When a company sells a laptop at $299 or $399, they are going to lose money on every unit sold. Thus, laptop manufacturers need to find every possible avenue to cut costs. By standardizing screen resolutions, a company can save potentially millions of dollars. This in turn allows a company to offer computers at a low price.

I'm not saying that a 16:9 screen is the sole reason why laptops are cheaper. But it is definitely one area where a company can cut costs.

 

Wow this is still going?

PS: i got you all beat when it comes to near sighted-ness, 20/400 AFTER correction from eye glass's

 

Incorrect. You simply dont know how the laptop market works...They make money, they also make a ton from software companies PAYING them to ship their laptops with trail software. Have you ever wondered why they load so much trail junkware? Its because the software companies PAY them to do so....welcome to laptop marketing 101.

 

Yes, laptop manufacturers do get money for allowing bloatware on their computer. But they DO NOT make money on loss leader laptops at rock-bottom prices. They, along with the retailer, are lucky if they don't lose money for each machine sold - which is often the case.

Don't tell me what I know or don't know. You may be in "laptop marketing 101" but I graduated a while ago.

 

My point is that they've been cutting costs of LCDs ever since LCDs came out. This really isn't different.

 

This is the dumbest thread I've ever seen. It's not a conspiracy, man. If you get a 1440x900 screen vs. a 1024x768 or 1280x800, you still have more resolution, and you have more room to put windows. I don't see what your deal is.

 

seriously. it's ridiculous. like small children.

people who needed the extra 200px should have been using a large, high rez external monitor. this is silly.