The official 16:9 screen protest thread

If everyone's complaining about how their laptop is 16:9, then why did they buy it in the first place?

Why not simply do whatever you have to (in terms of tasks) with the laptop, and in case things get too unbearable, whip out some cables and hook the machine up to a 16:10 screen/monitor?

Why create a thread deriding all the efforts of the laptop screen companies? I'm sure they've had their own reasons for making the switch from 16:10 to 16:9, and NOT only because of movie-watching...

Mr. Mysterious

 

everyone moved to 16:9 because that's the dimensions for which construction became the least expensive.

and in case nobody noticed, we're currently in a market condition that encourages saving as much money as possible.

as such, the industry has gone to a screen shape that allows for the same manufacturing processes to be shared with television screen needs.

it's common knowledge.

as is the fact that these people can just hook up to an external monitor for all those applications they're running in their minds for which 16:9 is creating a terrible, unworkable situation for them.

 

I believe there is a contradiction there; in that, "hooking up an external monitor" requires said monitor to have been purchased. I do not see how this saves "as much money as possible".

 

I wish you would stop saying that.There would be no way to tell if anyone would even buy these widescreen laptops. In fact, the move was primarily to support the content developed by the television industry. The fact that it was cheaper to produce was just a fortunate side effect.

No, but primarily for that reason.

 

Yepp - being required to buy a monitor defets the purpose of a laptop.

I only have my 13,3" 16:10 Sony Vaio, nothing else - I use that every day, no exernal monitor.
And I benefit from 800 Pixels height.

Also my SZ has a pretty good LCD in terms of colour accuracy - not the best, but still.
So getting an external monitor with the same quality or better will cost an awful lot.
And I don't fancy paying a few hundred for a monitor if I don't want it just because my laptop screen is loosng pixels on height.

And a sub 100 Pounds/$ monitor wouldn't "cut it" as the colours would be horrible compared to my SZ.

 

Here's the thing, no one has decreed that from point X forward ALL laptops will be 16:9. In fact, there are still many manufacturers that do not prescribe to that model. One notable example (at least for the moment) is Alienware and Lenovo.

So, if you consider yourself a purest (is there such a thing in laptops?) then buy from them, or other manufacturers like them. As long as there's a market, there will be companies willing to produce that product. Heck, there's still CRT's being made; and, if you look hard enough, you might even find a phonographs maker or two so you can still play your vinyl records.

 

Perhaps, but when the world switched from 4:3 to 16:10 a few years back, nobody decreed that from point X forward ALL laptops would be 16:10 either.

And yet, it's quite a challenge to find a 4:3 or 5:4 laptop today.

Yes, historical data is no guarantee of future trends, but in this case, available evidence is pointing towards a complete shift towards 16:9. Sure you can still find plenty of 16:10 laptops today, but will that still be the case in 2012? Many of us are worried that the answer is no.

 

Your sarcasm makes no sense because, 4:3>16:10>16:9 is a regression in usability while phonographs>8tracks>cassettes>cd's, etc. is a progression.

 

No it's not because these ratios are all a matter of taste. Usability is irrelevant.

Again subjective, as many people feel their phonographs produce superior sound. In any event, you missed the analogy. I was referring to that innate characteristic which leads some people to hold on to old things simply because it is what they're used to.

p.s. at least you got the sarcasm correct. I was thinking it might have been to subtle.

 

Sooooooooo just out of curiosity, is anyone who's against 16:9(the really hardcore people) actually doing anything to go against the movement other than subscribing to this thread?I'm not an expert on public pressure but I'm quite certain there exist things one can do to at least show their protest against a given shift in consumer production.

I'd be interested in actual actions we as a group could undertake rather than simply sit here and complain.

 

As Lily Tomlin once said, "I personally think we developed language because of our deep need to complain."

A very wise (and funny) woman...

 

You know the market can be a fickled thing; people seldom buy what they say the want. However, if you want to make your protest apparent, the best way to do that is when you make a purchase. If no body bought computers with 16:9 displays, the market would soon dry up.

 

For what it's worth, I sent this message to the HP support email:

http://h41112.www4.hp.com/pre-sales/us_en.html

 

Maybe we should pressure the reviewers on this site to list the 16:9 screen under the list of "cons" for each laptop they review. Seems like all the opinion makers have already bought into the change--makes it look like the inevitable order of things.

 

Listing it as a negative point is a good idea - however, this is only valid for people who wish to use ther laptop in any productive way.

The people who care about their BlueRay films on their laptop won't care at all...

 

I don't get where the 16:9 watches movies comes form. Yes, it's a movie format, but 16:10, 4:3 and any other screen aspect ratio can watch movies... Movie people shouldn't favor 16:9, they just plain shouldn't really care(except for screen resolution maybe).

So unless I'm mistaken, there shouldn't really be a "set" category of people who favor 16:9. Those who do would out of personal preference.

 

I believe some people are allergic to black bars.

Personally I prefer 16:10 - and I have a (new)DVD which is in 4:3 (documentary).

But the only key "pro 16:9 argument" is the movie/film angle.

Productivity goes down on 16:9 vs. 16:10.

And speaking of 4:3 - my university bought some new computers over summer - they are fitted with 4:3 screens at 1280*1024.

 

Black bars can still be present depending on the movie; 16:9 doesn't eliminate them so that argument is null.

The best choice in the best of worlds would be the most expensive for manufacturers: have variety. If you want a 5:4, 4:3, 16:10, 16:9 or whatever, you could pick it. This is unrealistic, but overall would be the best decision for the consumers, but not for the manufacturers as it would exponentially increase costs(and let's not forget 50% of people who buy laptops don't know enough to make an educated guess on their needs so I wouldn't even begin to hope they could pick their own screen aspect ratio).

 

That is true - but I think it reamains a wish

 

Oh I forgot to add that sometimes forcing things onto people is the only way to make them try new things. In this particular case it wouldn't work because the "new" thing is almost entirely bad compared to the old one, but what I mean is that sometimes, people don't know better and aren't arsed to try new things they might like.

A perfect example is my TV. I have a 50" projection 1080i projection TV in my living room. It works, and it plays everything I need(from DVDs to Blu Rays since it's FullHD). However, recently we've gone to a Plasma 50" FullHD TV. While it is smaller(less screen area), I've learned to appreciate the technology as well as the convenience of a smaller TV. Had I not had this change forced upon me, I probably would've stuck to that projection TV(which I still love more mind you) for the rest f my days. And that's the thing; people will tend to stick with what works regardless of if there's something that works better because they're too lazy, ignorant or whatnot to try other stuff.

I mention this(despite the fact that it doesn't apply to the current change in screen aspect ratios) because of the earlier "solution" I proposed. Chances are if we implemented such a choice, people wouldn't really pick depending on their needs, they'd just pick what they know and are used to(ex: people who have had 4:3s all their lie would pick 4:3 and people who have had 16:10 would pick 16:10 etc). In a sense, that might not be an attitude we as a society should promote IMO.

 

Or visa versa?

No it's not!

A point I've been making all along.

It's a connoisseur's ratio. Unless you're one of us, it won't make much sense to you.

You are wrong; and, there is.

For the most part, people don't buy high definition screens to watch documentaries.

Didn't the evolution of VHS over Beta prove that it's not always about productivity? Your average consumer isn't a scientist.

Hmm, at City college they did the same things, but wisely chose wide screen as their upgrade format. Way to go little schools.

It's hardly null. Although 16:9 isn't a perfect solution, it does lessen the intrusion of the black bars.

The manufactures cost, is the consumers cost. This savings works both ways.

Maybe? But that's far from the case here.

Okay, that was a bad example. For one, nobody "forced" anything on you. And second, the success of the flat screen industry was a result of the market, not any grand scheme cooked up to force them onto the masses. In fact, I was a watcher during the whole transition to flat screen. And from what I observed, people just weren't buying projection screen tvs any more. Even so, if you wanted one, the last time I checked, they were still available. So what does that tell you?

Umm, no. That model doesn't apply here, and certainly doesn't work with technological advances. For proof of that, you need look no further than the cell phone.

There's so many things wrong in these posts I could fill a database. But I hope I've made provided enough information to debunked of them. Or at least make you think.

 

Yes: I refuse to buy a laptop with a 16:9 monitor.

 

This is not a problem for me at least in 16:10. I sometimes work with spreadsheets side by side and it is very good. Also in 3D Applications i get with an almost 4:3 when all side panels are on.

 

I use a 16:9 external monitor. As for the aspect ratio, I have nothing against it. What I do dislike is that going from 16:10 to 16:9, we lose vertical resolution. At this rate, we're going to have monitors that are 16:1 just because its cheaper for the manufacturer.

 

I'm a proponent of high resolutions and prefer the 16:10 aspect ratio (4:3 is fine too). When it came to buying my latest notebook there simply wasn't much choice in the matter, I had to get 16:9. At the low end I don't mind it much (1366x768, which is what I have, is not much different than 1280x800), however when you get to 1920x, it does. The 16:10 standard was 1920x1200, while the 16:9 is 1920x1080; that's a loss of 120 vertical pixels or over 10% vertical space. Not acceptable. I'll have to do some serious hunting next time I go shopping for external monitors . . . might end up buying two and using them situated vertically (so 2x 1920x1080 vertical would be . . . 2160x1920 . . . hmm).

 

I bought a 17.3"(16:9) to replace mine 17"(16:10) so i think the increased dimension covers the loss. I agree that for same size might be a problem but i am seeing 15.6" and 17.3" as an effort to not make users loose vertical pixels.

 

Actually, increasing the physical size of the display doesn't offset the decreased horizontal pixel count. A 15.6" or 16.0" display with 1366x768 resolution (16:9) loses viewable horizontal space compared to a 15.4" with 1280x800 (16:10). The 16:9's physical size increase is from an increase in width to accommodate the additional 86 horizontal pixels. BUT, they still lose 32 lines vertically (top to bottom)- a loss of 4% in vertical viewing space!

Your situation, replacing a 17.0" (16:10) with a 17.3" (16:9) is a different situation. The vast majority of 17.0" displays had a standard resolution of 1440x900 (16:10). With the introduction of 17.3" (16:9) displays came a new resolution- 1600x900. So there's no loss of vertical pixels and a gain of 160 horiztonal pixels, a 10% increase! It's largely a 'win-win' situation.

Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the highest resolution option, commonly referred to now as 1080p and/or Full HD. Known as WUXGA (16:10), the resolution was 1920x1200; but it's 1920x1080 in 16:9 form. While there's no loss in horiztonal pixel count, vetical pixels (and, therefore, viewable space) is reduced by 10%! For a lot of users, that 10% consisted of black bars above and below their 1080p content- no loss. But for power users who took advantage of that 10% additional space (Excel comes to mind), it's a big loss.

Several months ago, I decided to buy my sister a new laptop. I've had great luck with Dell Outlet for several years now, so I was hoping to find a deal on an Inspiron 1520/1525 (16:10). But the newer Inspiron 1545 (16:9) was much more plentiful and dirt cheap with decent specs, so that's what I bought. The 1600x900 option wasn't offered yet on the 1545, so this one came with the 1366x768 15.6" display.

When it arrived, I spent a few days making a few hardware upgrades (hard drive & RAM) and tweaking Vista, etc. The 1366x768 display annoyed and frustrated me right out of the box...and still does whenever I'm at her house and use it for something! I decided that 16:9 was NOT for me after using it for a while!

Thankfully, some 14.0" and 15.6" now offer the option to upgrade from the standard 1366x768 resolution to 1600x900! Several Dell models offer a 1600x900 upgrade option (Inspiron 1440 & 1545, Studio 14z & 1555, for instance). The 'sweet spot' (16:10) has been a 14.1" laptop with a 1440x900 resolution for several years now. I've sampled a 14.0" (16:9) system with basic 1366x768 resolution and didn't like it. Then I spent a few days with a Dell Studio 14z that had the optional 1600x900 14.0" display...and I really liked it!

 

I would suggest you think about it. Assuming you're doing one thing per LCD, I'm not sure 1080 is wide enough. It's pretty close to XGA. I think 1200 is about right. The other issue on a 24" 16:9 monitor might be too tall for comfortable viewing. I don't know, maybe you feel different.

I have a dual monitor setup on my main box. It's a 20" UXGA rotated sideways and a 22" WSXGA+ on the side. The 1600 vertical resolution is perfect for Office and Internet type stuff. You don't get a lot of space on the sides, but you don't need it for those. Then I got the WSXGA+ on the side for the things where I like more side space like Photoshop or movies. I thought about getting a 20" QXGA(2048x1536) LCD, which I think would be great, but they're all very expensive.

As for the protest I don't care about the size and resolution of the screen so much, but could I please get a decent screen on a mainstream notebook? This means lots of contrast and good viewing angles. If it's got those I can live with 1366x768 I don't know understand how Lenovo can offer these on tablets, but not one on a regular notebook.

For this reason I don't foresee giving up my UXGA notebook any time soon. My T7400, while not top of the line anymore, still is a very good CPU, probably a bit below the P7350 performance wise. I don't need much juice for the things I do and there's no better LCD being offered on a mainstream notebook right now.

 

allfiredup thanks for a very comprehensive post.

 

Werd.

BTW ZaZ, have you looked the the Dell Precision/HP WUXGA RGBLEDs ? They are quite nice. While they do not have the same viewing angles as the Thinkpad IPS screens, they are quite good in color and contrast ratios when viewed at proper angles.
I was also reasonably happy with the 15.4" CCFL WUXGA screens. I think the 15.4 RGBLEDs should be better.


Oh, and I too protest the 16:9 screens. I need me some vertical space for programming. Programming errors go up when the code in a function cant fit in a page I hear.

 

As I have already stated, loosing 120 px on the vertical is very bad. If they used 2130x1200 then that's fine, you gain something. But loosing .... .

I heard that business laptops still tend to use the 16:10 resolution.

Alienware and Dell business laptops for example still use the 16:10

 

I imagine part of it is caused by a lot of actions done at the beginning of a function must be cleaned up at the end, so not being able to see the whole thing requires scrolling leading to laziness leading to errors. And scrolling in emacs using pgdwn/pdup/arrow keys is slightly slower and more frustrating than mouse scrolls.

Screen ratio has influenced quite significantly in my quest for a laptop. A vast swathe of the market was excluded by having ty 1367x768, and I'm probably going to grab a T500.

 

No, NBR won't send me one for some reason, which they really probably should. I've heard they're quite nice. I like having the 1200 vertical pixels. A standard 15" notebook is roughly the same height as a 17" widescreen notebook. As a result the pixels per inch on a UXGA is lower, making it easier to read than a 15" WUXGA notebook.

I think the angles, which I've also heard the Dell doesn't offer, is another issue. I had a nice 14" R60 with the BOE-Hydis SXGA+, which is supposed to be the best of the 14" SXGA+s. It was almost the perfect notebook for me size wise. It seemed I could never see the top and bottom half of the screen at the right angle. One or the other was slightly inverted. While that's fine for Office and Internet, for any media stuff, it wasn't the best. It's why I bumped up to the 15" R60.

I've seen the MBP, which everyone seems to think is a very good screen. The contrast was good, but the glare was terrible and it didn't offer the angles either. While I'm sure the RGB is nice, I don't think it's near as good as the FlexView. It's still a TN panel at the end of the day.

 

Having both (IPS and RGBLED), I'd say the RGBLED *is* pretty close (if not the same) color wise. It does lose out on angles though. But viewed at the right angles, wow.
I read comics on the laptop. There I like bright vivid colors which the IPS has.
The RGBLED has it too, and I honestly think both are the same, heck maybe the RGBLED is better. Someone mentioned in the dell forum that the colors on the RGBLED appear as if on steroids, and I agree. The reds/greens are REALLY red/green and so vivid they appear painted on the screen. That is, if there is an image on screen with black, red and green stripes, the red and green stripes appear painted on, its so vivid. Images are uber-sharp. And there isnt any glare, I think the screen is matte. Oh, and the screen is BRIGHT. I wish it were less bright actually.

This is for the 17" RGBLED though, havent seen the 15.4" one.

I'm very happy with the Precision M6400

 

Forgetting resolution, 16:9 screen's are smaller in physical area than a equivalent 16:10 eg. 15.6" 16:9 is 3 sq inches smaller than a 15.4" 16:10, yet pretty much every 16:9 model I've compared is a physically bigger notebook usually a similar depth and up to an inch wider.
The new 16:9 M15x is an absolute monster, dwarfing even 17" notebook's like the precision M6400 in volumetric dimensions and depth, yet has a smaller screen than it's normal sized predecessor let alone a 16:10 17"

smaller screen's in bigger notebook's isn't an advancement

 

I'm sure it's very nice, but I think the angles gives the FlexView a leg up. Here's what I want - a 14" SXGA+ IPS/AFFS. If someone makes that, I buy one today.

 

Dell's specs for the RGB-LED displays indicate that they can display 100% of the color gamut! Most other displays on Latitude/Precision models can only display 45% of colors, in comparison. The WUXGA CCFL-backlit 15.4" and 17.0" are rated at 75% of colors.

The CCFL WUXGA displays (available on the Latitude E6500, Precision M4400 and M6400) actually have two CCFL-backlights. I'm very impressed with the image quality of the 15.4" version even compared to newer, more advanced LED technology. These dual-lamp displays have a super-bright 350nit maximum brightness rating. Even the RGB-LED tops out at 300nits.

If the CCFL WUXGA has an Achilles' heel, it's power consumption! While the lower resolution WXGA and WXGA+ displays use 5-6W of power, the dual-lamp WUXGA uses closes to 13W!

The contrast ratio is another improvement on the RGB-LEDs. They're rated at 500:1 compared to 400:1 for most other Latitude and Precision displays.

Final note- the RGB-LED displays deliver amazing image qualilty and depth of color. But they are 'glossy' displays with all the benefits and drawbacks...and some folks have been surprised when their new Latitude E6500 or Precision M4400/M6400 arrived without an anti-glare screen!

 

My 17" RGBLED doesnt seem glassy ...

 

wow, this is some thread. ive not read it all but with windows 7, having the taskbar on the side helps a lot. just takes a bit of getting used to. (i have 1920x1080, ie 16:9)
my 2c

 

I would probably do two 21.5" monitors vertical. I have a 24" now and I think it would be too large for that purpose as well.
1600+ vertical pixels is ideal; I use OpenOffice several hours per day and would benefit from being able to see slightly more than one entire page at a time [attached].
What I wanted to do for a long time was get a 2560x1600 monitor, but unfortunately those are on their way out as well since it's 16:10; the 16:9 equivalent is 2560x1440. 160 lost vertical pixels . . .

That is what I do as well; putting the task bar on the side saves a good amount of vertical space.

 

That's actually not a bad idea, but it the task bar has to be reworked a little in order to work properly.

For example the Start button should be on bottom, the opened task that show in the task bar should expand vertically, not just horizontally. -> I think that's pretty much it.

 

Perhaps instead you should keep the 24" and buy a 20" UXGA for sideways rotation. That would get you the 1600 vertical resolution. There's still a few out there. The Dell 2007FP comes to mind. I have a earlier version of that monitor. Mine's an IPS panel. I think the newer ones use either IPS or PVA, which is better than TN, but not as good as IPS. It'll probably set you back $250-350 for a new one depending on if there's any good deals floating around. You can do better on eBay if you don't mind used/refurbed.

 

Notebooks should have had a screen panel that could rotate to vertical.

 

Notebooks should have dynamic screens that users can mold like playdoh - adjusting size and resolution at will.

 

yeah, but only malleable like playdoh--it actually needs to be made from .9999 fine gold but only cost .10 per ounce instead of $1,000

 

Almost all tablet PCs can do this...

 

In a few years we might all be wishing they still made 16:9 laptops, as they may move to 21:9!

http://www.displayblog.com/2009/01/15/philips-cinema-219-cinema-lcd-tv/

Or even 31:10!

http://blogs.zdnet.com/gadgetreviews/?p=4759

 

I think if that happens I'll be buying vintage hardware... or hope my little Vaio lasts another... ehm..60+ odd years...

 

going from my M17x then using a 16:9 screen i am .... disgusted to say the least

 

We shall not let take what is good from us !!! ))

Come guys, protest...