The official 16:9 screen protest thread

that would be kind of cool, not?


oh, and, we get close to that today..

 

Yes, all laptops will become scrolling marquee boards. XD

 

You know, 16:9 isn't too bad at all...on a notebook anyway. I think the bad part is just the base resolution...1366x768 is cramped, and some start off even lower. I like my 15.6 inch HD+ 1600x900 though, and it fits pretty decently on a JetBlue tray-table (something netbook-sized would fit better of course).

I'd never go to a 720p 16:9 screen...those just suck (too bad they're 95% of what's on the retail shelves). But if you can go up at least one resolution notch they're fine. Particularly when used with browser zoom and the Windows7 "snap" features (which someone should have thought of long ago).

I figured this was coming...having to make different aspect LCDs is more expensive, which was the reason 5:4 was doomed as soon as HDTVs started selling, and why 16:10 was also eventually doomed. Easier and cheaper to use the same aspect, and even the same LCDs you'd use in the same size TV. And one can always trust companies to do whatever's cheapest, so the CEO can buy another yacht.

Admittedly some sites suck on a wider screen, but that's because they aren't formatted correctly. And scrolling vertically isn't THAT much of a hassle, with wise use of the up, down, page up/down, and home and end keys. But personally I like the depth reduction that 16:10 laptops brought, and I like the numeric keypads that 16:9 started allowing on 15 inch machines (in addition to the further-reduced depth).

I use a pair of 5:4 screens at work of course though.

 

Well, 16:9 will give you ridiculously small palmrests -especially in the 13" segment.
The ones on my old 4:3 laptop at 14 or 15" were maybe a bit large - but comfortable - the ones on my Vaio, 13,3" at 16:10 are perfct - actually, while I type it - they can be short for the arrow keys...

But 13,1" at 16:9 ... (see Vaio Z) - you loose comfort.

And resolution, the Z comes with 1080 height - but that's tiny font...

 

I think that depends on the design. My Probook's palmrests are fine: I find my wrist joint rests about 2 inches south of the keyboard in most cases (I arch my fingers a lot) so the shrinking palm area doesn't bug me.

A smaller laptop might have a bigger problem, but they SHOULD just move the keyboard closer to the screen to compensate.

 

verticala scrolling on the web your right isn't that bad, but when your coding it can be a real hassle.

 

16:9 is useful for comparing thing and multitasking. For example I can have on my right side a 3D model in progress, the plans on the left side or some web pages...but I would love to have more resolution...1080P is nice, but just doesnt cut it...It is a pain though when you have a tall form and you cant see it because the usable screen is 908 pixels...

 

But so is 16:10

 

interestingly, this works all even better on 16:10, where you get 1200p and thus more space to work on.

and multitasking worked great in pre-widescreen days, too.. 3d models + plans where one exact case i worked on.

cutting height is never a gain. adding width mostly isn't one, too. only very few workflows adapt well to that.

 

I know. I am not saying 16:9 is better, just that you still get to work with it, its not like it is impossible to use it.

I have not done coding so far, so I would not know there. But in my case, the penalties of this "cheaper" screen are not that bad...and I can scale everything and get a lot more reading area for web browsing too, if needed.

 

Them and MSI had offerings for 15.4 with numpads. The new MSI 1656 (might be wrong on the model) has me very interested in that size, but the lack of WUXGA options has me on the fence. As for 15.6 the only one I have seen so far in the business class is the HP 8540w. Im not a fan of chiklet so the asus are out for me, and my beloved dell and lenovo (like everyone else) use the extra width for fancy speaker covers and wasted space IMHO. Now a 1920x1080 15.6 may be useable, but still it's going to be painful when web browsing and coding sadly.

No worries people will start to complain again one day and we will lose even more screen space. Just a matter of time. I just wish OEMs realized that movie watching is no where near the primary use of laptops and computer screens...

I have to say I am a sony P fan, would be nice to get the windows 7, large SSD, 2.0GHz version to fit in my pocket.

When I say painful, I mean I get frustrated doing something I love. Granted its not the end of the world, just really close to it.

 

The HP Probook 6540b and 6545b also (Pics of the 6545b here). And MSI had to compress the Enter, Backspace, and Right Shift keys (and the Numpad Zero) to squeeze that full keyboard on. I was tempted to try it anyway. Photos and review of the 1656 here. it's noticable, though it doesn't look like it'd be too terrible.

The HP 6545b maxes out at HD+ (WXGA+ kinda). I heard the 6540b might go higher but I'm not sure the CTO version is available yet.

 

T510 is 16:9

15.6" HD Anti-Glare Display

 

i can life with it, too. this is not about the impossibility of using it. it's about the not-being-better-than-what-we-had-but-worse. it's about ranting and crying that this is one of the (few) computer progressions that are bad for us. mostly.

most content in the digital world (as well in the analogue actually) is vertical.

 

Oh, I see. Well, it is not better I agree.

The W510 for example looks way too wide and big now "thanks" to that ultra wide screen...dang Lenovo, you lost it...

 

I too was worried about the MSI, but in the review Chaz reassured me that the keyboard is actually pretty decent. Granted it would be hard to go from a dell/lenovo business class keyboard to it, but Im sure I would adjust in due time.

As for the Probooks from HP, they look great and all but screen real estate is essential so they arent tempting at all. I work on a WXGA+ (1440x900) screen with a WUXGA external and its OK, but when I get home to the dell I dont even unpack the thinkpad anymore.

I know but no numpad. When looking at the old XPS 17in, macbook pros 15.4+ and these it annoys me to see the space taken up by silly buts Ill rarely use or fancy speaker grills. I use numpads alot and the lack of one on the lenovo makes me sad.

 

Agreed. When the time comes to switch I will have to deal with it, but getting something new and having it be less then what it replaced stings alot.

Its a nice looking laptop minus all the wasted space (and the implementation of a touchpad, but then again thats just me ).

 

I wasn't kidding about the "kinda." HD+ is actually 1600x900, so horizontally it's more like WSXGA+.

I'm still tempted on the MSI, but I needed battery life more than GPU muscle. I was coming from a Compal, so it wouldn't have been much of a jump (though I don't miss my old Thinkpad keyboard anymore). All the games I play are at least 4 years old, and ATI's 4200 IGP handles them just fine. Worried about when Starcraft 2 comes out though.

Did you know Wizardry 8 actually looks BETTER on a 16:9 display? The extra width helps a lot. Probably helps a lot for FPS too, unless someone's shooting you from above anyway.

 

don't worry, Blizzards games scale well, so you 4200 IGP should at least run the game (how well is another question).

 

For multi leveled FPS like MW2 having vertical res is good too. 1600x900 would be usable on 14.1 and lower IMHO. I can survive on 900 vertical pixels, but its a pain when compared to the extra 300 on the dell. As for battery power I love that my thinkpad gets 8-10, but in all honesty I only need that kinda of battery life on rare occasions. Besides the thinkpad spends about 60-70% of its life plugged in at work or home.

Agreed. They want the widest available customer base. Even with the 3.0 graphics engine update I was still able to max WoW on my old ddr2 8600mGT at 1920x1200 with 40-60 frames. I also hear SC2 will have an enthusiast graphics mode which I'm excited to see if the game ever comes out.

 

lol maybe im crazy but i think that 16:9 is way better than 16:10 on my old notebook

 

It also depends on the resolution. If you went from 1280x800 to 1366x768 -> that's understandable to some degree.

 

Not necessarily. 1366 x 768 = more scrolling vs 1280 x 800.

 

Yes, but the difference is quite small, you gain more pixels than you lose overall.

 

Oh please, that's 30 pixels difference. That's MAYBE the taskbar.

Mind you, I find 768 cramped as well, but anyone who finds 768 cramped should also find 800 cramped (like I do). And the next step in both 16:10 and 16:9 is a 900 vertical resolution: WXGA+ (1440x900) or HD+ (1600x900).

 

It still matters. Anyway, 1280 x 800 was the 16:10 version of 1280 x 720, or vice versa, whichever way you want to put it.

 

I currently use a 16:10 1680x1050, which i absolutly love (besides the fact that it's a mac). Ill soon have the 17.3" laptop shown in my sig, and im lookign forward to an extra 30 vertical pixels, and 240 horizontal. For me it will be an upgrade in all directions, even if it is 16:9.

Also, its not all about total screen area. The human eye/mind naturally prefer a sweeping left right view, while not looking up or down too much.

^^my attempt to throw in some science.

 

Better multimedia usage? You can't make up your own reality either, that's just one of the many bloody excuses that the companies spew out to you consumers why the move from 4:3 to 16:10/16:9 was a good one. Wider is cheaper generally in screen production, i don't mind my 16:10 screen because of the fact that it's WUXGA and on a 15.4", looks phenomenal.

 

I've played COD4 on a 15.4" 16:10 1280*800, and on a 15.6" 16:9 1920*1080 and I don't think any number of pixels can make up for the fact that I feel cramped on the 16:9. Although I am generally against 16:9, I a fully willing to get one if they are available with higher refresh rates. I have a very high flicker fusion threshold, meaning a 60hz display is like a strobe light. Although LCD's have a constant back light and it won't be flashing, I can still see significant imperfections with 60hz.

Back to the ratio topic, it's completely opinion and application. 16:10 has been my favorite choice, but refresh rates are even more important to me.

 

And my opinion is, I like them. Not as bad as I thought it would be after seeing it for the first time.

 

i guess one can partition all the major LCD manufacturers in Korea and Taiwan, and start writing threatening letter to their CEO and Chairman about surrendering to our desire for 4:3, 16:10 IPS, S-PVA, AFFS+ LCD for laptops.... or else we will squat in their mansion and eat all their truffles and caviar in their oversized fridge.

 

I'm quite happy with 16:9 thank you very much. The problem is the ODMs and OEMs who choose to only offer low-DPI panels that max out at 800 vertical pixels at best. THEY'RE the ones I want to squat on.

Except Dell, who actually offers a WXGA+/HD+ upgrade on most of their 14 and 15 inch machines. And HP, who at least does so on the Probooks and Elitebooks.

 

And how exactly am I doing that?
It's a statement of fact that most films are only available to purchase in a 16:9 aspect ratio, so is what possible messed-up version of reality can you try and argue that using a different aspect ratio for your display would be better?

If 16:9 is not better for multimedia usage then why, with the exception of Philips' 21:9 model, is it the standard for widescreen TVs?

 

Hmm.... why do I have a 4:3 DVDs.... for those 16:9 is far worse than 16:10.

And DVDs.... people will rant how laptop screens are too small to watch films, bla, bla, bla... and then talk how good 16:9 is for films...

And all the people who want height... they loose it

 

They aren't particularly common-place though, are they?
And aside from those few exceptions, for which neither a 16:10 or 16:9 display is at all well suited, my point is perfectly correct - I never said that DVDs only come in 16:9, I'm fully aware that occasionally films are made available in 4:3 ( I have 4:3 Pan'n'Scan versions of The Crow and The Shawshank Redemption but thankfully both come with a 16:9 copy as well, which gives you a far better cinematic experience) but the majority nowadays do.


As for your point about size, of course watching a film on a bigger display would always be preferable but sometimes needs must.
However that's a separate point from the one about aspect ratios.

 

You have 4:3 DVDs because you bought them back when the majority of monitors and TVs were 4:3 and DVD makers had to offer that option. Personally I always though it was silly since all DVD players have a zoom function, obviating the need to buy a film in the artificially limiting 4:3 format instead of the more flexible 16:9.

I want a GSM Palm Pre Plus. Doesn't mean I'm gonna get it. The whole world doesn't exist to cater to me or you personally. You simply have to find the best solution available that you can get. I'm apparently a minority or AT&T would have catered to me already. Seems that very few people want 4:3 laptops anymore.

And you know what? There's good reason for it. 16:10 and 16:9 are much more portability-friendly form factors for a laptop. With 4:3 you had a minimum size to fit a keyboard, and had to stretch the body vertically to fit the screen. With a widescreen form the vertical is reduced, which reduces the front-to-back depth of the machine, allowing for more screen space, and enough width for a more comfortable keyboard (even with a numeric keypad) without making the laptop too bulky. Why do you think they never EVER made a 17" 4:3 laptop?

 

In my case its an old film and a recording of the Red Star Red Army Choir in France that are 4:3 - most new films are just not worth buying... but that aside as it is preference.

Personally I hate large screens - but then that's preference again...

Down to aspect ratios:
People who want to use their laptops productively loose with 16:9 - with 16:10 the "multimedia crowd" gets some narrow black bars at the top and bottom - honest question, what is worse?

Personally I'd just have a few small black bars - as they aren't a problem for the few occasions I want to watch something in fullscreen.

At the same time, I don't want to loose height - talking with Dave once about Photosohop for example.

Landscape shots are OK in 16:10 due to the layout of the programme - in 16:9 you'd be loosing useable space.

And portrait images would benefit from 4:3.

 

We're not debating 4:3 screens here.

And well... I can put off buying a laptop for quite some time at the moment.

I possibly will.

I am also not the only person who wants 16:10 - most business users will prefer it to 16:10 as you can read more.

Ideally manufacturers should offer both - business laptops with 16:10 and laptops for the media crowd who need a glorified portable DVD player at 16:9.

 

Firstly, again, to claim that it's harder to use your laptop productively if you have a 16:9 screen is extremely dismissive and rather rude.
There will be plenty of people who have laptops with 16:9 screens who use their laptops productively and would either see no improvement by having a 16:10 screen or who are not bothered either way.

Secondly, even at 16:9, the majority of movies come with black bars already pre-encoded at the top and bottom of the screen as the film was actually recorded in a 'true' 21:9 widescreen aspect ratio, so by watching them back on a 16:10 screen you end up with even larger black bars at the top and bottom - they become quite a bit larger than the 'narrow black bars' you're referring to.

As for the rest of it, again that's just personal preference.
There is no technical reason why a 16:9 display is worse for photoshop use, it's just that you would prefer a 16:10 one.

That's extremely presumptuous.
The few hundred posts in this thread by no means prove that the majority of business users prefer 16:10 displays. For a start, not everyone posting in here is against 16:9 screens and even those that are, are not all business users - reading over the past couple of pages, there are people complaining that they don't enjoy gaming as much on a 16:9 screen, which is a rather different argument to the one you're putting forward.
This thread is not indicative of anything other than the opinions of the people who have posted in it.




For once and for all, can we please draw a line under this?
There are no technical reason why one aspect ratio is superior to another, there is only personal preference.

And to that end, what point does this thread have other than to cause arguments?

 

all I can say is my 8530p better last until OLED is release, then when i have to go to 16:9. I atleast GAIN something.

 

Please explain how 1920x1080 is superior to 1920x1200.

 

I gained LED backlighting (yow that gets bright). And was smart enough to get one of the harder-to-find HD+ screens, meaning I gained horizontal pixels over 16:10 instead of losing vertical pixels going from WXGA to 720p.

 

Most people have a 16:9 screen because they have no choice - they'll buy it because the rest of the specs is what they need or want.

And Photoshop - have you ever used it? Have you seen all the space that could be used by a Photoraph but isn't due to the screen format? (unless you zoom in, but then you no longer see the whole photogprah)

 

Well, if my voice will help, I also would like to say that I prefer 16:10. They should use 16:9 glossy displays in domestic machines for those who want to have fun watching movies etc. For those like me who use the machine to actually work, 16:10 matte displays are much better. At least the business machines should have 16:10 matte displays as a option. I would gladly pay some dollars more to have them.

PS: I thought that manufactures used to listen their consumers... 9_9''

 

I never said it was.
But at the same time I contend that it is not inferior either.

I personally believe that it is better suited to video/movie playback but that's not a technical point - there is no reason why a 16:10 display couldn't be used for watching films on.

As I have repeatedly stated, it's all down to personal preference.

People buy 'em because they have no choice, they have no choice because it's all the manufacturers offer, it's all the manufacturers offer because they're cheaper units to buy, they're cheaper units to buy because they're produced in larger numbers and they're produced in larger number because they sell better - at some point in the past, when 16:9 screens were no more prevalent than 16:10 ones, the laptops that carried them must've sold better, otherwise the market would not have swung in that direction.

No, I have never used photoshop.
I use GIMP from time-to-time but it's very much an occasional thing ( to the point where I'm not even sure I've reinstalled it since I swapped out my desktop's primary HDD late last year).

But, again, you're merely stating your own preference.
I'm not arguing that you wouldn't be able to fill slightly more of the screen with the photo if the aspect ratio of the display were different, I'm just stating that the fact that you find that a hassle is only indicative of your opinion/preference - just because you find it annoying does not mean that everyone who uses PS does.

Who says they're not?
Perhaps the vast majority of laptop users do not mind, or even possibly prefer. 16:9 screens and it is only a few people here who seem to take exception ot them?

 

There was never any census asking for a shift in screen aspect ratios.

LCD manufacturers shifted because it was convenient for them i.e. they could make a same batch for both HDTVs and computer screens rather than separate the things in 2.

People accept and perhaps don't midn the shift because of the whole "HD" movement happening in the TV world. When you tell an average Joe their computer screen is "1080p", they go "wow!"(I know, I've seen this many times), but they're not aware that resolutions superior to that were already available for years.

 

You are assuming 16:9 notebooks sold better than 16:10 - maybe because manufacturers only brought out new models and people tend to buy newer products? With preferably higher numbers.
(And no idea if better or worse specs for the average user)

Look at many mainstream products... the company moves their production to China, prices stay the same and quality goes downhill... people still buy the products....

Photography - people who shoot portraits don't even like 16:10 - I generally shoot in landscape mode - I don't think you'd find many people who would say 16:9 has any advantages at all for Photoshop.

I know - that's the problem - people buy, but have no clue what they buy....

 

Well that's the fact a whole profession is based on(namely marketing)

I wouldn't blame marketers for consumers' ignorance though. Human ignorance can stem far deeper than simple consumer ignorance, but that's another story.

 

That's true.

 

On another note, am I the only one kinda appalled by the shift to lower resolutions on laptops, especially business models? I mean, I have plenty of P4s sitting here at work with 1680*1050 and they didn't cost a premium to get those resolutions, yet if you wanted a 1680*1050(well say last year or the year before), it'd be a "premium".

Same argument can be applied to 16:9 mind you, all those horrid so-called "720p" -_-