The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Of course, I buy a expensive monitor to buy another more expensive monitor that needs space.

Come on. That may work for a desktop but not for a laptop.

You cannot tell a laptop user to buy an external monitor to get their extra vertical pixels.

 

you're right it's not a conspiracy. it's firms having too much power over consumers. the deal is that people with 1920*1200 screens have nothing to upgrade to. and would have to down grade eventually if 16:9 takes over.

 

Count me in

 

yah, and desktop screens are going 16:9 as well.

 

At least on a desktop screen you can buy a huge screen that will not result in such a dramatic loss of height.

But it means you pay more

 

If manufacturers don't give the consumers what they want, they go out of business. If you don't believe me, just ask GM.

It's always something.

Here you go:

To be fair, that's why they were first invented!

 

Well great, a huge box for a tiny screen and no computer power... (compared to today's standards)

 

Ya people watched tons of movies when laptops were invented...those 8086 and 286 CPUs ran videos and DVDs with no problem ..... NOT

 

You're so missing the point; did you read the thread?

 

i think you're missing the point, laptops are meant to be all purpose machines, instead of dvd players.

 

Are you aware of the contradiction in your statement? In any event, that's what I've been trying to tell people all along!

Of course you can. In fact, that's the standard solution for such a situation as this. Desktops have always been more comfortable than notebooks for this very reason. And that's why people typically buy ancillary hardware to make computing more comfortable at home. However, the recent influx of the desktop replacements, may be the exception to that rule.

 

Krane, stop speaking obvious truths.

 

I am wholeheartedly down with the anti 16x9 movement. When we went from 4x3 to 16x10 it really did feel like an improvement. It felt like we gained width. With the current trend to 16x9 it really feels like we are losing height. Try to edit a word document on a 16x9 laptop. You are either zooming so far out that your text is miniscule or constantly scrolling because you can only view half a page at a time. Surfing the web? How many web sites are designed for 16x9 aspect ratio? I hope they are including really nice touchpads with these 16x9 laptops because users will be doing a lot of scrolling!

 

No.
Some people buy a laptop because they can do what they need and use less space than a desktop PC.
Also, you can carry a laptop around.

If I buy a laptop I get is as an all purpose machine - Period.

If Computer manufacturers want me to buy an external LCD that defies the point of a laptop - and I doubt they would like to fund a larger desk and the LCD.

My laptop for example is used for everything I do.

I don't want a desktop, and I don't want an external LCD display because I don't have any space for it on my desk.

If I wanted an LCD deisplay on my desk I'd have bought a desktop, not a laptop.

 

That depends which way you're looking at it really. "Feeling" like you gain/lose width/height is more or less relative from which point(or which resolution) you're looking at it.

Phinagle made a pretty clear point earlier on how difficult it is to compare actual screen resolutions between different aspect ratios.

 

wait. are we on the same side?

 

OH NOES, THER GOES MY XTRA 80PIXZORZ FROM MY SCREENZORZ, WAT WILLI DOO?

I still don't get why anyone still tries to protest against 16:9. Like the manufacturers care about ranting nerds on some internet forum who are strongly against it. If you don't like it, then don't buy it. But then you have to buy it, because the market is saturated with it, so that's your bad luck.

I really can't see anything wrong with 16:9, care to explain?

 

One example are netbooks. 1024x600 is hard enough, now manufacturers are placing 1024x576. This causes problems with many apps and more scrolling required. Also, people see that 16:9 is making displays shorter, like 1920x1200 (16:10) becomes 1920x1080 (16:9), and they lose pixels just to make it 16:9.

The scrolling and app problem are seen more on smaller displays (like 1366x768).

I personally won't mind 16:9 if they just extend the width rather than take out height :\. It's better to just make like 1280x800 to 1422x800 or something. And not all people can read tiny text on high-res displays (like a 15" with 1920x1200).

And I also am not anti-16:9, but not pro-16:9 either. The only reason I guess for manufacturers doing this is because of 16:9 video.

 

There is no such thing as "adding width" or "removing height" in the formal sense because screen resolutions don't match up from one aspect ratio to another.

WXGA for example can be 1280*800, 1280*720 or 1372*768 and for the record, the last 2 resolutions are 16:9.

Fact of the matter is, we've been losing vertical to horizontal space ever since LCDs came out(or screens for that matter). 4:3 to 16:10 to 16:9(I'd go back further in time to 5:4 and such, but I'm not even sure they were widespread enough), we've kept losing vertical space in comparison to horizontal space.

 

:::cue tupac:::

'Round and 'round, 'round we go.....

 

Once the obvious untruths desist.

Which came first...? Really, that's not a way legitimize and argument.

Has it occurred to you that your description supports my point? Take a good look at the sides of your laptop!

I just don't want people thinking they're somehow short changed because their laptops are good for more than crunching numbers.

In that case, perdoname.

 

Alrighty... here's adding some more fuel to the fire for ya:

Now, I'm not going to be too terribly inconvenienced going to a 16:9 display from a 16:10 display as I won't get anything under UXGA/WUXGA equivalency... I will not stand a low-resolution display on anything I'm going to use as a primary computer.

However, I'm willing to pay for a higher quality notebook, and all things considered it's the LCD manufacturers that are cheaping out, not the notebook manufacturers. I mean, really... is there any reason you can't use IPS or a similar technology on newer LCDs? If we're going to have to deal with the LCD manufacturers cutting costs by going to 16:9, so be it. But... why do we have to deal with these inferior TN displays? I'm never going to be in the market for a $300 notebook, no matter who makes it. I'm willing to spend many times that for quality hardware, so why can't I get it?

There have to be others that are willing to consider quality over cost, at least to a point. Sure, there are going to be loads of average Joes and Janes that are going to pick up the $300-400 notebooks and not care that they have a WXGA(or close) display, cheap plastic finish, and mediocre internals. But, there is a decent-sized market segment of people who demand(and will pay for) high-resolution screens with great viewing angles, great hardware, and solid construction... and will be willing to spend $2K+ for a rig that suits their needs.

 

I'm probably going to be pounced on and rediculed for my choice of laptop but as a 16:9 owner I thought I'd say what I think of it.

I bought my DV6 using a company discount. My firm buys HPs by the 50 so we get to use the EPP - upshot of which was I got a £600 laptop for £475. I've really liked HPs in the past and I thought the dv6 represented a really good deal so I went for it. Of course I checked the specs were to my liking before buying.

Now I have had the laptop for about 4 months I can honestly say I didn't think I'd find a laptop I liked as much as my old L100 but in this I have. The design is great, the build is really solid, i love the look and the finish and the performance (while modest compared to some machines these days) is pretty quick compared with what I have been used to. Overall very happy.

But to the 16:9 screen in particular. I don't like huge resolution on small screens, it does my eyes in, so I'd look at 1280*800 on a 15.4" 16:10 or as this HP has - 1366*768 on a 15.6" 16:9. I don't game on this laptop, although I have installed some games to test and it seemed very nice, although a bit virtically claustorophobic but then this laptop was not bought for gaming. I don't run games on it very often at all - I have a desktop for that. This laptop spends most of its time on my knee in Windows 7 posting on forums, browsing and messaging with MSN. For that use 16:9 or 16:10 makes little difference to me. I like the fact that the screen is lower so I can see over it to the TV when I am in bed. I like that I can have 3 msn windows side by side with no overlap. It's perfectly good for browsing, the only slight issue is a slight lack of virtical res occasionally when opening picture browsers but that doesn't really bother me, I doubt an extra 32 pixels of 1280*800 would make a huge difference there. The wider base of the laptop to cope with the 16:9 screen actually lends itself more to having a numpad which I love!

Aside from the aspect the screen is bright, sharp, clear and has great colours. It's the best laptop screen I have owned and everything looks fantastic on it! Would I swap it? No. I really like my HP how it is and for my usage it's not a problem, in some ways I prefer it. I'm not saying that 16:9 is better in every way at all, it's not, I just like my dv6.

 

With 16:9 what are our display options then? Can someone clarify what the screen resolutions will be and to "replace" the 16:10 versions? I only see two:

1280x800 = 1366x768 (pseudo 16:9) or 1280x720 (720p)
1920x1200 = 1920x1080 (720p)

What about 1440x900 and 1680x1050? I guess you could consider 1920x1080 an "upgrade" from 1680x1050 instead of a "downgrade" from 1920x1200. But then there's no "equivalent" to 1920x1200.

 

There's also 1600x900, but it's rarer, just like WSXGA+ was.

 

I'll avoid matching them up directly with 16:10 versions since that ticks people off but 16:9 resolutions released so far for PCs in general are 1024x576, 1366x768 (I can't recall seeing 1280x720 used yet), 1600x900, 1920x1080, and only on desktop monitors 2048x1152.

 

I always liked WSXGA+... it's really to bad...

I agree with the above person who was talking about quality. I would pay more than double if I was garrenteed a solid build. my Thinkpad isn't as solid as I was hoping for, it's tough but the flex in the palm area makes it 'look' flimsy... so far I've tried acer and Lenovo, and I have an apple coming this evening... maybe I finally find a decent computer... maybe not.

 

Great...

On the first too you loose height.

On 1600*900 on a 13" or even a 14" laptop you'll end up with tiny pixels..

 

Let me ask you 16:10 folk a question....

Where do you think 1280x800 came from if there's no 4:3 resolution that can use 800 vertical pixels? (800 isn't divisible by 3).

Was it a wider, taller version of 1024x768(XGA), a shorter, wider version of 1152x864(XGA+), or just a flat out chopped down version of 1280x960(SXGA-)?

If you say 1024x768 because it's XGA and 1280x800 is labeled under WXGA then now you know where they got 1366x768 from. (Also WXGA and a direct wider version of 1024x768)


Or what about 1440x900? It's possible to have a 1200x900 resolution but it was never really used as a 4:3. 1152x864 was used instead because it's the largest 4:3 resolution under a megabyte. If it wasn't taken from 1152x864 then maybe 1440x900 could again be a shorter, wider version of 1280x960. As far as I know there wasn't a 4:3 resolution that used 1440 horizontal pixels only 1400x1050 SXGA+...but that's where 1680x1050 came from.

It's probably a good thing too that there wasn't a 4:3 resolution using 1440 horizontal pixels, because if there were it would've been 1440x1080 and that would have meant that not only was 1440x900 a chopped down version of it but 1680x1050 would have been too. Then again, had they used 1440x1080 screen makers could have stretched it out to make a 16:10 resolution of 1728x1080....and that way once 1920x1080 came along people wouldn't know how to cry about it.


(For the record the x800 and x900 resolutions likely originated with Sun Microsystems' 1024x800 and 1152x900 which were 1.28:1 resolutions.)

 

So what are you showing?

That we lost height? - If so, we don't need to loose more.

That we gained height? (Which was the real life experience for most people as most had a height of 768 on their laptops.
But then we don't need to loose that again.

 

Phinagle, that's actually the most coherent post I've ever seen. You've successfully managed to introduce actual logic into a conversation about personal preference.

However, you do miss the point of this thread - which is that computer manufacturers are holding 200 vertical pixels at gunpoint because their goal in life is to make their customers miserable.

And DetlevCM - lose. L-O-S-E. LOSE. Used in a sentence: I gained a pound yesterday so I'm going to lose it today.

Loose. L-O-O-S-E. Used in a sentence: I'm going to effing loose my mind if you keep using loose in place of lose.

 

Thanks for the English lesson...
Well, actually its one of those things I always forget how to spell right...
The other is chose/choose ...
Yepp, English isn't my first language.

Thanks

 

Well I think they don't specifically want to make customers unhappy(except amybe a few companies here and there lol ).

It's just really a cost reducing factor as it's always been.

 

Incorrect by scientific standards.

Cost reduction has never before driven technology BACKWARDS as it is by switching to 16:9

 

Technology isn't going backwards. The technology used in 16:9 LCDs is the same used in 16:10... Unless you can prove to me they're using cathodic tube 16:9 screens on those new "laptops"

You can assert that cost reduction has halted or driven back usability/work efficiency of said technology, but the technology itself remains the same. In a few years, they could add in OLED 16:9 screens for all we know...

 

XD XD XD 10 CHAR(whatever the heck that means )

 

16:9 =

You lose about an inch of height on a 17" screen size. All those 16" laptops would be 17" if they had the proper aspect ratio. 16:9 needs to die in the PC realm, who ever started it needs to be crucified.

 

Firstly I think it should be

" I'm going to effing lose my mind if you keep using loose in place of lose."

Secondly isn't this all about personal preference anyway? I use all three kinds of computer screen, standard aspect in the office, my work laptop is 16:10, my personal laptop is 16:9. They all have different tasks and different reasons for having the screen shape they do. There's no logical reason why one is better than the other it's just what people prefer.

 

Logic: 16:10 was designed and is the standard PC aspect ratio, 16:9 is not. 16:9 makes the resolution and screen smaller, reducing space for Windows and is incompatible with 16:10 applications.

 

100% correct. Isnt it amazing how some people cant grasp this simple concept. It has nothing to do with preference.

ANYWAY you look at it productivity has gone DOWN with 16:9. If anyone argues this they would be the laughing stalk of the forum....

As someone stated before...anyone who thinks 16:9 is better contradicts themselves every time they hit the scroll wheel.....LOLz...

 

Guess what? Nobody wants to carry around THREE laptops....

 

I suppose, the other problem would be finding a 4:3 laptop...

And carrying around 3 laptops is the same argument as being forced to buy an external screen to "gain" the height lost.

It defeats the purpose of a laptop.

The purpose of a laptop is firstly to be a portable workstation.

Only with the reduction in price have tasks like "movies", gaming etc. been added.

 

Of all the things that have been said in this never-ending thread, this has got to be one of the worst.

By your argument, I could say that the purpose of a computer is to crunch large numbers, not to run applications, to create documents, or to play games. Or that the purpose of the internet is to share data between universities, not for entertainment, or social networking.

The purpose of laptop (or anything else for that matter) is whatever the purchaser intends it to be. The consumer decides purpose, as technology evolves over time, so does its usage.

 

Laptops were never originally intended as portable DVD palyers - this is one of many functions that have evolved into it.

Why can you buy dedicated portable DVD players - because they are designed to be that.

And speaking about Workstation:
A workstation includes a lot.
Word, Powerpoint presentations, "number crunching" - or as I know for one member here - DJing - another use - that is more recen Photo editing (for the photogrpaher who travels).

Playing movies or gaming are two tasks that were never ever intended for laptops - its only that people and companies though - one can game at home, why not make it portable.
The DVD player aspect was an add on in the same way.

And the idea that the consumer decides what the product is to be used for is absurd.
The manufaturer decides what he offers - and the consumer picks what most closely resembles his choice.

The only anomality from this would be very small outfits that specialize in custom products - made individually for each customer.

 

People are too ignorant to see that NOBODY watches movies or plays stupid games on laptop....Gaming on 16:9 is actual worse than 16:10.

This is what burns me the most. Productivity is suffering while they FORCE these 16:9 screens on us.

Ill say it again, they're forcing these junk screens on use since its cheaper for them to produce. They try to force the idea of "Full HD" but the thing they dont understand is that nobody watches movies on laptops!

I personally dont know ANYONE who watches movies on their laptop. Why? because watching movies on laptops SUCKS. You have a small screen and poor speakers....

 

Well, actually, I do like to watch DVDs on my laptops - with headphones.

BUT: I do this beacause I can - not because I want my laptop as a DVD player.
(And because TV programmes are 90 odd % junk and we never had a TV at home)

I just never got fond of big screens - and I'm fine with a 800*600 pixels film (got one like that, originally from the 80ies)

But this doesn't mean I want 16:9 which would hurt 4:3 films more than 16:10 and which makes just about any piece of productive software (Office, Browser, Photo Editing, Maple etc.) less useful.

 

That's a rather pointless comment. I use four computers in my day to day life. I have a workstation at work (twin 4:3), a 16:10 work laptop, a 4:3 home desktop for gaming and a 16:9 home laptop for music, internet, msn whatever. The only one I ever carry anywhere is the work laptop and it's fairly well suited to that being a 14".

I just watched some things from BBC iPlayer on my laptop. I am not well at the moment (an unfortunately common occurance), I saw some stuff on TV and decided to view some of the previous episodes on iPlayer, from the comfort of my bed (as I'm not well). Those programmes (like most TV these days) was in 16:9 format and fitted my laptop screen perfectly.

I'm not saying that 16:9 is the best format for everyone, I'm not saying it's better than 16:10 or 4:3, but it does have a place. People do watch movies and/or TV prgrammes on laptops, I have done it, not all the time but I have. Think of students in their college rooms who don't have space for a TV as just one example, that happened a lot when I was at university.

Yes, for people who have 1 laptop for everything 16:9 might not be the most flexible, but in my position it's perfectly good for what I do. I really like my dv6, not because it is 16:9 but just because I think overall it's a great laptop.

Now let me ask you, why did we get 16:10 over 4:3 in the first place? What was the point?

 

Actually students should be studying...not watching films or be out drinking.

But the way education is going... ....but obviously this opened a market.

The student who wants his "media player" not a "workstation"...

 

It's a perception. 16x10 felt like gaining width. 16x9 feels like losing height. The big issue is how high the dpi is getting to keep the vertical resolution that many people find necessary for productivity. Moving to 16x9, if I want to keep the same vertical resolution, I have to either go with a very high dpi screen which is makes it harder to use for extended periods due to eye strain, or I have to carry around a laptop that is a good 4 inches wider than my current laptop. Both are compromises that represent a less ideal solution.

Do you know that Windows is designed for a 96 dpi display? A high res 16" widescreen is pushing 140. We are way outside the usage target for the platform.

 

You my friend are spot on and truly understand the reality of whats going on here. Good job.