The official 16:9 screen protest thread

I am wondering why I just saw this now. I would have signed this a long long time ago. But sadly they do not care as they can now bump their profit margin up by selling cheaper (not quality but size/price) screens for the same money. Heck Im wondering how they haven't made this ratio more expensive being as it is supposedly so much better for HD 1080p.

 

I have a WUXGA 16:9 and no complaints here, albeit I went from WXGA 16:10

 

they actually have.. prices didn't really went down much at all, and the current display technologies are really crap for the cheap laptops. the most cheap 16:9 panel available. very bad view angles, contrast, etc.

they try to reduce everywhere a bit, without going down in cost much

 

At least it seems "workstation" notebooks will stick with 16:10, for now.

 

Laptop prices haven't gone down much at all?

Dual core laptops with 3-4 GB of RAM and 250+ GB HDDs are selling at $399, and on the other side of the spectrum, a new Asus G51j with a Core i7 and a GT 260m sells for $1500.

I'm not saying that this is due to the switch to 16:9 screens, but find me an industry with less margin than laptops before you start crying that the companies are trying to nickel and dime you.

 

that recent price drop happened after the introduction of the 16:9 screens, so i doubt it has to do with it.

but i'm not really crying. i just find it's sad.

but yeah, people get what they pay for. and now there are more cheap options. reducing the minimum quality at least lets my laptop look better with no cost

 

I'm not pro 16:9 but I am having no problems with mine.

As long as the screen is good, I'm oke

 

Quoted For Truth! My dream resolution would indeed be 2133x1200. My notebook has a 15.4" 1920x1200 display, and I like having 1200 pixels of height!

If they could just up the horizontal resolution instead of dropping the vertical resolution, this 16:9 craze wouldn't be an issue. In fact, 16:9 would really benefit rotatable desktop LCDs, because then you'd have some crazy height to work with (excellent for programming).

 

i received my HP 8730w (2009 model) with a very poor quality, from 2005, samsung display (model sec3448) and now its backin service for screen replacement. But they told me its possible that the replaced screen to be the same model because they have different manufacturers and it depends on my luck.

can anyone tell me the model of the screen for the ccfl wuxga 1920x1200 ? (you can see your model by using pc wizard). The one i checked in their showroom before the buy was a way better screen (not dreamcolor) and i try to find out the alternatives on the market.

 

for those of you who are on Facebook, you can join this group
http://www.facebook.com/search/?q=16:9+protest&init=quick#/group.php?gid=61041096895

 

Hmmm, remember the 4:3 days... glad i have one from those days.

 

i just switched a friends 5:4 1280x1024 screen with a "much bigger" 16:9 1920x1080 screen.

the screen looks like it's just the same, with a bit more width. which he can't put to use 90% of the day.


and i know, again, how much i hate 16:9... it's just so ridiculous stupid, can't understand anyone liking it.

well, he likes it. mainly cause it's a new screen, though (and a better casing), and he got my 'old' quadcore with it phasing out his p4

 

i started with 5:4 days *crying*

 

Same here.

It warms my faith in humanity slightly when I see the occasional person posting in this thread or others regarding this abomination of a pc aspect....despite how utterly fruitless it will ultimately be

I guess when we get 17" diagonal screens that are 16.7" wide and 1" high the masses will think its wonderful because it will be much better than 16:9 if you want your notebook to double as a cricket bat or something........as long as it has more pixels sideways though

 

I would if it wasn't on facebook

 

Wow..

This is like complaining about the death of the typewriter or something.

I fail to see how 16:9 kills productivity BTW.

 

Because many people need 16:10 for the extra real estate in terms of height it provides. Good examples of this are CAD, and viewing long webpages, which are better with more vertical space.

This is why 5:4 > All.

 

Well, the squarer normally the better, and 3D modeling does take advantage of this, but having 1080P kinda helps when going from WXGA...so no complaints here, and I can run 2 screens side by side no problems, so I dont complain.

I would rather much have a 16:9 nice screen than a 5:4 that is crappy...

 

It's like when 'Charmed' or 'Arrested Development' went off the air, it SUCKED but I had to move on.....same with 16:10! It will be sorely missed by many, but that won't bring it back...

I'm just not ready to even think about buying a 16:9, it's too soon....

 

You're not alone...

 

If this is the case you should probably be using a desktop and 5:4 screens. I use a desktop at work with 2 19" SXGA screens. I don't disagree that 16:9 for work would be a huge pain but my personal laptop is 16:9 and I like it, I get a bigger picture for watching films and no applcations I use personally are annoying in 16:9.

 

What's your screen resolution?
The biggest pain is for those of us who have to move from 1920x1200 to 1920x1080.

 

actually you have a smaller picture. the further you go way from a square the smaller the area is. on a per inch basis you LOSE screen space.

it will be a really sad day when I have to go to 16:9, I think I'm just going to make my 16:10 hold out until OLED.

 

I have tried to use programming IDEs on a 16:9 screen and it is painful to say the least. The only resolution that would be remotely usable would be 1080p or FHD something as the OEMs call it. Web surfing, email, and many other work tasks are in the same boat. The only thing that works well on 16:9 is gaming (still prefer 16:10 for more viewing area) and watching TV/movies. Neither of which are main uses of a laptop or desktop, granted I have a sling box and when I fly I watch a movie or 2 but those are rare occasions when compared to actually using a computer for tasks that it was intended for.

I guess Im just glad that Im a 17in workstation fan and those are the ones that the big OEMs are keeping 16:10, but for how long I will never know. Right now Im wishing I had the money for a W700 or a dell precision 6400/6500.

 

I dont understand the last part. Screen ratio and display technology has little to do. OLED screens will be 16:9.

 

I think he's implying that OLED is enough of a technology bump to make it worthwhile to deal with a 16:9 screen.

I do agree that vertical pixels are very, very nice to have. I'd rather have a 16:10 display on my new Envy. But notebooks are no longer a cachet product, something for people who do work on them. They're toys for EVERYONE, and since everyone apparently watches movies on their laptops (I only do when traveling), the 16:9 screen "makes more sense" because it prevents twits from complaining about the black bars and other such stupidity. People don't think they're getting full value if the movie doesn't fill their screen.

 

Yepp - I'm sure its that too.

However, from my portable MP3 player OLED doesn't seem that great...

Basically - buy what you need when you need it.

 

yup you read my mind! OLED will be great but given the choice I'd get 16:10, unfortunately I know it will be 16:9.

for movies they are great but for work they suck, I may need to go to the 17inch machines if they still come with 16:10.

 

Now, 21.15:9 is insulting...

 

I'm thinking I'll be ok with the 1080 high 15.6" I'm getting... I think there will still be options sub-17". A 17" is just a behemoth.

 

Its a behemoth only for the weak! The smallest and largest I would go 16:9 would be a 1920x1080 15.6 with numpad keyboard. 1080 on anything larger is just not enough screen real estate to warrant the size IMHO.

 

What about a 13,1" 1920*1080 screen?

Vaio Z 1,43kg (I stick to my 1280*800 SZ)

 

I would use it (the size to res screen, and not the sony and their chiklet keyboards). But I like the full sized numpad keyboards.

 

OK.

I don't need full numeric keypads - I can always plug in a Logitech Wireless one... I have it and use it very little...

 

i've been using 16:10 lappy for 5 years at 1900x1200 and now anything lower then this i can,t stand it even 1900x1080 is a pain so i got a m17

and we are lucky at AW the new i7 m17x is 16:10 with a rbg led

 

I have a USB numpad that I take with me for the thinkpad, but I cant stand it. I have used quite a few versions but they never match the internal keyboard among other issues like moving around when trying to type and the general pain of having to plug and unplug every time (I know this isn't that big of a deal, but compared to internal it is for me).

Just an FYI I wasnt bashing Sony, just the chiklet style keyboard.

I thank my luck stars ever time I see the OEMs still using the ratio on certain models. I even dream of them dropping the 16:9 ratio after it failing horribly...but then again that is only in my dreams.

 

I didn't say you were

 

Oh I know . But I just wanted to make 110% sure you or others didn't think I was Sony bashing.

 

I'm with you that I love a dedicated numeric keypad, but a 17" laptop is just too big for me. ASUS was the first (to my knowledge) to introduce a 15.4" (as in 16:10) notebook with dedicated numeric keypad included. I thought it sounded like a perfect idea, but I was sorely disappointed when I got to use one. Both the keys of the 'regular' keyboard AND the numeric keypad's keys were narrower than usual and felt very odd. I tried for at least 20 minutes and couldn't acclimate to the skinny keys and some of the odd key placement. It was a bummer.

Perhaps that's the one great benefit of the 15.6" increased width- it allows room for a normal keyboard setup plus a number pad! But I haven't used one first hand, so I'm not certain of that...have you tried one out?

 

What's odd about the "black bar" argument is that "1080P" movies are usually 1920x1040/1920x816/1920x800/1920x796 not 1920x1080, so most of the time there's still black bars to be dealt with.

 

Lets leave that topic there before screen manufacturers want to get the right size (making them wider)...:S:S:S

 

I can't see them stopping at 16:9 personally, movies and standards will be the justification for years to come in squashing aspects further, it's just coincidence that a smaller screen area-costs less and after all, the notebook vendors have no say.....the screen manufacturers are going to "make" them change

 

You nailed it! The end game is a 100000x10 pixel display...

 

Truth. Philips have already made a 21:9 screen...

http://www.consumer.philips.com/c/televisions/33092/cat/gb/

Son, I am disappoint.

 

Laptops will look like swords, we will use sheaths instead of cases.

 

Oh come on now, no need to exaggerate....at least 100 vertical

If they make notebooks in that format, you will be able to have 2 keyboards and 2 number pads on it, no palmrest....my imagination is running amuck thinking of the marketing possibilities the manufacturers could use on such a notebook, wonder if they would call it....Super Duper High Definition plus plus plus and maybe another plus to ram the point home to 6packs.

Good ol Philips huh, I still have a 29" 4:3 Philips flatscreen tube, pretty heavy, something like 55kg from memory, the legs on the plastic and glass support frame just about snap off if you try and drag it around on the carpet!

 

no I disagree, if a big player like HP was to approach Samsung or however and just say "you are going to make me 16:10 panels or else your competitor's will" HP would get there way. It's all about money and if an OEM says they will drop a LCD manufacture over it they will conform to what HP wants. Competition would see it as an opportunity to get a big contract from HP would take it, even if they have to make a more expensive screen. the original LCD manufactures wouldn't risk losing a big customer like HP or Dell.

The issue is OEM's (HP etc.) agree with the LCD manufactures, they believe that cost is more important than screen quality and for 90% of users this is true. so that leaves us 10% or so that are out in the cold. the problem is that 10% is the market the usually buys EXPENSIVE computers and business who buy tons of expensive computers like Thinkpads and Elitebooks etc.

so it's as much the OEM's fault as the LCD manufactures fault.

 

Sorry about my original post, I meant Philips.

I need more sleep.

 

Its about money.. AND marketing. The "p" suffix labeling has built up multi-million (billion?) marketing halo with the HDTV craze over the past few years. Every year there is increasing marketing mania about the newest HDTV's. So, why would the LCD manufacturers (and OEM's) not get in line to feed off that trough? Why would they keep their own ratios and standards? If Joe Blow was swayed to plonk multi-grand to buy that 62" 1080p "HDTV" to keep up with the Jones's; why would anyone not try to rope him in to buy a laptop with a "1080p" tag when he comes into Best Buy?

 

you browse this forum. you would have nearly twice the height, half the need to scroll around all the time.

and, i HAD a 5:4 15" laptop. 1280x1024. a friend had a 14" 1600x1200 laptop.

there's no x1200 16:9 laptop out there, especially not in the 14" scale.

turn off the scroll-region on the touchpad / the scroll wheel on your mouse, and you quickly find out how often you have to grab the VERTICAL scroll bar.

every time you do, a more HIGH screen would help. in short, for ANYTHING that is not a movie.

you don't have to understand that, but it doens't change the fact that it's true. we scroll all day long except when watching movies.