The official 16:9 screen protest thread

That's capitalism at its worst...
Anything that's good is a "premium".

Look at something as simple as a pen.

The cheap ones are either very bad - or easily recognizable.
The understated ones are expensive.

 

But then there was never any census asking for screens to stay 16:10, just a few people on here who take exception.

That is a possibility but, at the same time, I've never seen a 13" or 15" HDTV on the market, whereas there are plenty of 13" or 15" laptops with 16:9 screens.
Unless the actual panels used are identical to the ones used in HDTVs, then the manufacturers would save nothing by changing from producing panels they were already set up to manufacture, to a different resolution/size/aspect ratio.

Like I say, if the screens weren't already selling, there would be no commercial/financial sense to switch to a whole new size/resolution/aspect ratio of panel just for the hell of it.
And whilst Forever_Melody does touch upon one possibility with the prevalence of 'HD' TVs, I don't think that alone accounts for it.

So, one lot of photographers prefer one aspect ratio and another lot prefer a different one - that's exactly what I've been saying, it's all personal preference, there's no technical superiority.
All the different aspect ratios are just randomly settled-upon anyway, so the only possible difference can be one of preference.

 

Yes - but the problem is, that only happens between 16:10 and 4:3 - 16:9 is a loss any way you look at it for photography.

And the other use - code, work documents - the aforementioned "more scrolling" - Do you know that when I use Excel I do end up zooming to 85% to use it at that so I can see more lines...

 

Exactly. Shifts like this in the industry are rarely consumer driven.

Yes, they're the same panels, that's the point. The point is that they can use the same batch of panels(rather than make 2 batches) with the same machine instructions(just adjusted to a smaller size) rather than add in another set of instructions to make another aspect ratio and have to separate the whole thing into 2 batches.

The reason people are upset isn't just the shift to 16:9, you have to understand that. It's the constant shifting to smaller screen areas as well as smaller vertical-to-horizontal ratios. It's not just what's come out with 16:9, it's what comes AFTER that we're afraid of too.

 

But then if there is no technical difference, only one of personal preference, then you are in fact agreeing with me and this whole thread becomes a little pointless.

 

Point is, the industry changes without advising its consumers. Unless you show me concrete fact that the shift was consumer-driven, in my mind it wasn't. Therefore, everyone who favored older aspect ratios are at a loss since if they want their vertical space, they have to pay a premium. I can't even get the same amount of vertical space my 1600*1200 gave me without paying huge amounts of money anymore(since the new "high end" is 1920*1080). Any 16:9 panel that goes over "1080p" costs an arm and a leg.

We're asking for choice basically(the choice between aspect ratios). Yes, it's an expensive thing to implement and yes, it'd be impractical, but it's what we'd like/hope.

 

It is ok to offer 16:9 displays as it is ok to offer glossy displays. The problem is to offer only 16:9 displays, not even a single future option with 16:10. Some manufactures like HP seems to be moving in order to only offer 16:9 from now on, even in business machine (if I was worry about games e movies, I would go for a domestic laptop or a alienware)

HP, for example, launched the new EliteBook 8440 with only 16:9. I think that HP actually knows that business users prefer 16:10, but decided to change anyway maybe compelled by the lcd manufactures and chickened out by the costs. In order to keep selling against competitors still offering 16:10 displays (like Lenovo), they are also offering "sweets" like USB 3.0 (which Intel seems to be willing support only in 2011).

Sincerely, I don't need the last kicking processor for my everyday, but everyday I see my display, so I will probably keep myself away from 16:9 as long as possible. Like me, I can bet there are many consumers in the same position. I don't think the new Elitebook would sell well without its other "sweets".

Well, anyway, what can be done? Hope HP gets a huge loss

 

We have now started to descend into the most minuscule of points.
At least we seem to have moved on from any ridiculous arguments that one type of display is technically superior to any other type.

I'm not arguing against choice ( or, at least, if that's how it came across it was not my intention) - in an ideal world we could all specify exactly what size and resolution our laptops' screens are without some colossal penalty to pay but that just isn't practical.

I still don't personally believe that the industry would've moved to 16:9 panels if most of it's customer were against such a switch but I cannot prove that any more than Melody can prove that is what happened - all I can offer is simple logical economics (supply and demand etc) but that's far from conclusive.
But this is all besides the point.

If you prefer 16:10, more power to you and I hope you continue to be able to find laptops and monitors that suit your needs but at the same time, I personally really quite like 16:9 screens and will continue to argue that my own opinion is no more or less valid than anyone else's.

 

If it was consumer driven, threads like this with so many replies and users reading wouldn't show up. I totally support this thread because it is a way to express opinion (maybe some manufactures will read this if they really pay attention to consumers =P ). The shift from normal displays to widescreen displays was already not easy for Word/Excel users. Now they want to get rid off of more vertical space? Moreover, sorry, but I don't want to use magnifying glass to read my texts.

 

The simple system of supply and demand ceased to work decades ago - mainly due to uninformed customers.

The mob buys what the seller tries to sell...

 

Any opinion is welcome.
The problem with the supply demand argument is that machines are such complex products that most consumers don't even have idea what is a ram memory. They buy because it is pink, because it is shiny, because it is the cheapest, because many reasons completely unrelated to display. In order to analyze the impact of display in demand, you should have two notebooks identical in everything but the display in the market. And if you had it, i would bet that 16:10 would sell better.

 

I'm sorry, but no.
This thread, as I have already stated, proves nothing except for the opinions of those who have posted in it - the number of people who have posted in this thread are insignificant compared to the size of the laptop/computer market as a whole.

Supply and demand isn't dead.
Certainly, 'uninformed' customers will negate it's effects a bit but it's more likely that most people just don't care - I'm not saying that most people are pro 16:9, merely that most people are not against it.
And just because someone does not object to something, that doesn't mean they are necessarily uninformed, or if they are then it's quite possibly because it's not an issue for them.

We're getting so far into the hypothetical here and it really doesn't make any difference.
Not trying to be dismissive or insulting but it whatever you or I think about such an unlikely circumstance is meaningless.

 

Have you ever thought about the majority of computer customers? The majority hasn't got a clue what they are buying - they just want something that works... and then take whatever the sales person recommends...

Some people want the newest tech - and have no choice but to accept a 16:9 screen.

It would be interesting to see a vote - pro or against 16:9 screens... MS could serve that quite well through Windows Update...

 

Well, I can understand your point of view, since I agree that part of it is preference so a shift in something preferential being driven by mass preference would seem logical. However, like I said, consumer-driven changes are rare nowadays, especially in a domain inaccessible(knowledge-wise) to most like computing. Computers are no longer a premium tool like they were a few years ago. My point is that before, only the knowledgeable would actually get a computer, nowadays just about every Joe and their mom has a PC, and probably a third of those have laptops too regardless of their level of knowledge. Now, to a certain level that is fine(computers and their benefits are more accessible to the masses), but it's hard to argue consumer driven changes when half the consumers are very much unaware of the market or even its products no?

So really you are right in saying that most people probably don't care though, but that's hardly an argument for us consumers; in fact, it's the very core of marketing. They play on the fact that most people will just take what you throw at them. Basically, you're just arguing that a change happened, and that most people don't care and you're using this as an argument against those that DO care and oppose the change. Just because the majority doesn't care or accepts a change doesn't make said change beneficial for most.

 

Yep, and many people don't care about protest either. So yes, this is not a useless thread.

 

4:3 will never come back. Why is this thread still open?

 

Maybe because we don't want 16:9????

Even if we don't get 4:3 - we at least want out 16:10 and not horrible 16:9

 

I protest the existence of 1366x768. It's a terrible resolution, especially on 14.1" and larger displays.

If it's 14.1" or bigger, it ought to be 1600x900.

 

If you are happy with what you get and don't have anything better to do, there are plenty of other threads to read

 

This post has my stamp of approval.

/signed

 

For a while there, I thought I was reading portabledvdplayerreview.com.

To all the smaller screen in bigger notebook lovers, the fact that 16:9 is what you always wanted to have all along, would be more believable if you had actually had a choice in the matter and still chose 16:9.

16:9 shows less black bar in widescreen format movies....thats it, as far as advantage goes, the notebooks are mostly the same size OR bigger, ALL 16:9 screens ARE considerably smaller for a given size in screen area....if thats not a technical disadvantage, I don't know what is.

Basically with 16:9 you are getting 12-16mm chopped off the screen height and a few added on the sides OMG...OMG...I always wanted to be given a smaller screen for the same money and in the same size [if not bigger] notebook, its such a technological advancement because LESS IS MORE

There seems to be more people appearing in this thread, not to protest about the move to 16:9, but to defend their purchasing decision to buy 16:9, I don't know why, no one is calling you an idiot for buying them [as you basically have little choice now] what is idiotic, is trying to make out that it is not downgrade for 90% of notebook use....anybody with a calculator and a brain can work it out for themselves.

 

LOL, people should be forced to read all 78 pages before they post. This thread is like the merry-go-round of arguing.

 

Yup, your right, however, it doesn't bother me, it keeps something I passionately despise at the forefront, pointless...definitely.

Thanks for your contribution to keeping this thread at the top

 

Yeah, and funny...

During the supremacy of 4:3 screens, there were people asking for widescreens. Then they came, some liked it, some didn't, but they came and stayed, and for a while 16:10 was reigning supreme.

Now I don't remember seeing people asking for 16:9 before they came. It seems to me that everyone happy with 16:9 would also be happy with 16:10, but the opposite is not true: everyone happy with 16:10 wouldn't be happy with 16:9. Manufactures should try to really improve their screens like their horrible side views instead of marketing the fake idea of less is good =P

 

DOWN WITH 16:9!!!!!!!!!




( I haven't shouted that for a while).

 

Hear Hear!!

Unfortunately, 720p tends to be the only choice on a lot of laptops. But there are several that offer upgrades, and they will be the only ones getting my business from now on.

16:10 was nice and all but not quite wide enough to truly show two documents side by side unless one went up to WSXGA+.

However, on 16:9, one can do it on 1600x900, which is one step above base, as opposed to WSXGA+ which is 2 steps above base. If you want to work on 2 docs side by side, it's all about the width. So anyone looking to work on 2 docs side by side could have been said to be asking.

 

No problema!
So give us MORE resolution (WSXGA+), no LESS screen

 

As if this thread was gonna convince anyone...your talking with ghosts.

 

It is worth a try...

Talking about that, anyone with a 14.1" 1440x900 display can see the difference. I changed the resolution to 1360X768 (the closest to simulate a 14" 1366x768) and forced myself to use Word for a while. First sight, no good. After like one hour I was getting used to it, but then I changed back to 1440X900. Ow, what a pleasant difference!!! Now I love even more my 14.1" 1440x900 display!!!

I know you can get 14" with 1600x900 instead of 1366x768, but if you also increase DPI in order to not become blind (like I do), you will end losing vertical space anyway. And between the basic setups 14" 1366x768 and 14.1" 1280x800, I don't have doubts that 14.1" 1280x800 is much better, IMHO.

 

16:9 is here to stay...there's nothing anyone can do about it.

 

true, that doesn't mean we have to like it.

1680x1050 Is the best rez ever made. not to small of print, plenty of room, and didn't cost a fortune. oh, I love my HP 8530p.

 

Not that old...
I am over my portable Olivetti

16:9 can spread as long as there are at least one or two options with 16:10. I think it is good to show that you are not happy. I remember years ago how people were upset and worry with the spreading of notebooks with glossy screens. Maybe because complaints, the manufactures have maintained at least most business machines with matte screens (thank god). I just hope something similar could happen with 16:10 screens. Come on, 16:9 can even make notebooks bigger (less portable). Imagine using your superhyperwider 16:9 notebook at the seat of the economic class in an airplane… I guess I will move to 13.3" if 14.1" dies

 

My HP Envy (15.6" 16:9) is waiting for me at home... I'll test it in the Economy class when I come back out here next week Honestly, I think it'd be better than 16:10. It's no higher than the 14.1" Thinkpad T61 I'm using now, yet it's wider and much higher resolution. The height of the screen is what kills me in economy class... trying to situate yourself behind some jerk who will just slam their seat backwards without even looking. 16:9 gives me more pixels while staying at a lower height

 

In your case, yes. But sadly, most resolutions have been cut down. The new Toshiba Qosmio X505 has a stupid 1680 x 945 resolution as compared to the 1680 x 1050 on the X305.

 

Man, because of you I just saw that HP is also offering Envy 13.1" 1366x768 instead of the traditional 13.3"... Not even 13.3" escaped... That sucks... Well, HP is dead for me. And a 15.6" laptop in the economy class of a airplane?! Man, if you like the experience, tell me which airline you are using lol.

People should also protest more against the space in economy class =P

Marketing one day will sell a pen to people as the new revolutionary word processor... And people will love it.

 

The way to protest the space in economy class is to be willing to pay more for tickets. since that ain't happening, we're still sardines I've been flying United to get out here lately, and it hasn't been too bad with my T61. Just gotta keep the screen at an angle so if they jam back their seat it'll just shut the lid instead of jamming it down. I'm also 5'10", 160lbs, so I'm not a huge guy. It helps when dealing with smaller seats and such I'm not sure I can even convince my company to pay the extra $80 round-trip it'd cost to get the economy plus. A whole 5" of extra legroom!

 

There is nothing sacred about non wide screen screens. You just feel attached to them because that's what you grew up on. Remember, computer screens have always followed the TV standard. So it would only be fitting for laptop screen to follow that lead again. It's really not so surprising actually, people hate change. Except when it's subtle, or behind the scenes.

 

thank god i got a rGB let 16:10 in my AW before they changed

 

Not at all, I love changes, for good, of course, and they have to make sense

 

So there were 16:10 televisions?

And from your logic, it looks like were going to have 21:9 notebooks fairly soon then...

 

Computers have morphed into multimedia devices, from their calculator roots. The initial screens were 4:3 because that's the size that TV's are, and TV's were the first display devices for computers. Then there was a bit of time where TV's moved wider to match better with movie aspects while PCs remained calculation-centric no real need for extra horizontal space. Now, as computers become more multimedia machines instead of productivity machines to most home users, the screens follow the same path. If you want a 4:3 or 16:10 screen you have to start looking at the business lines instead of the consumer lines.

The fact is, there are a limited number of core LCD manufacturers. The widescreens are the profitable ones, so those are the ones manufactured in the greatest numbers, which is why it's hard and expensive to find anything else. But you will always be able to find different screens. If you're willing to pay

 

If I could have exactly what I wanted, it would be a 17", 16:10, rgb led, that's at least 120hz.

I would totally jump on the rgb led in the M17x, but I know I won't be buying again for a while, and I really need 120hz panels.

Something just occurred to me, they can put these in portable blu ray players instead of my baby! I wish.

 

That's the problem, it is becoming harder and harder to find them even in business machine (I don't even remember seeing a new 4:3 notebook these days).

Why not keeping 16:10 in business machine? It is so simple! People who buy those machines is already agreeing to pay a "premium". And they are supposedly not worry about games and movies. If people want pink, shiny, glossy, 16:9 laptops to watch Oprah and Hollywood movies, please go to the domestic machines: there are plenty of them in many flavors.

 

Manufacturing complexity. Its not always part costs

Complexity cost is a whole area of study in industrial engineering and manufacturing optimization! As it is, a laptop has a proliferation of SKU's : four of five HDD's, 3 to 4 screens, 2 or 3 processors, RAM options and so on...

The screen is an major part of the chassis, so a separate size SKU for the screen would be a major realignment of the fixtures on the assembly line for example. Small volume changeovers dont make plant managers happy.

Added complexity increases costs across the supply chain - from purchasing to end of life warranty stocking. Would you want to stock that small amount of niche screens for the products running out of warranty 5 years from now (with extended warranty)?

So, while the individual part cost difference between a 16:9 and 16:10 might be small; once you stack up the complexity costs through the supply chain - the coins add up to be unpalatable. And we haven't even begun talking about quality...

 

4:3 is for me.

 

So I've stumbled upon this thread and I feel the pain. It's not the change that bothers me, it's the type of change. I don't mind the wider resolutions, it's the loss in height.

I've owned an Asus X83 (N80 series) which had a 1280x800 resolution and a Dell Studio 14z with a 1366x768 resolution, and I definitely prefer the Asus. I now have a different 14z with a 1600x900 resolution and that's just fine, actually, for a 14" laptop, it's perfect.

What irks me the most is that it is VERY hard to find anything but 1366x768 unless you go up to a 17" size on most laptops now. At least when we had 16:10, you could easily find the 1440x900 or the 1680x1050, but this 1366x768 option is everywhere. Even in the Asus laptops you go from 1366 to full HD on the gaming models, nothing in between. Very frustrating. 1366x768 is just horrible on a 15.6" or 16" screens.

I'll accept that 16:9 will be the future, but at least give me 1600x900 or 1680x945.

 

I am not a production engineer, but the 16:10 technology was already there. The production lines were already there. It is not like to develop something completely new to attend consumers who want 16:10. And I don’t think the problems are related to the chassis. Each manufacture is always producing plenty of different chassis with different colors, different arrangements etc. It seems that they just don’t want to pay more for their display providers, preferring to use the same displays produced as tvs. And it is not like people don’t want to pay the price. People who buy business machine is agreeing to pay the price. And so you have some funny things… I remember Lenovo some years ago selling thinkpads with leather covers. Ok, so to produce business notebooks with leather covers is ok, but not with 16:10 displays… The useless is important, the less is more… and people buy these ideas. I love marketing!

For those who don't remember
http://www.engadget.com/2007/06/15/thinkpad-reserve-edition-unveiled/
Yep, Lenovo was selling this online for a while... And seems that the inclusion of leather in the production was very expensive, given the price they tagged Even so, the "extra cost" seemed not be a problem... It is very important to have a leather cover in your exclusive thinkpad...

But 16:10?!?! NO WAY, it would be too much difficult to produce and would increase absurdly the prices

 

Cherude,

I am not trying to be a knowitall. But, having a manufacturing capability today is not important (we still have manufacturing capability to make huge V10 engines ). Its how many products are being shared on a particular assembly line or plant. If 16:10 doesn't have enough paying customers to justify running a separate assembly line; then they wont have a dedicated line for that. Ofcourse if these 'businessmen' really wanted their 16:10 screen; then I guess they could throw in a ton of money to get someone to run a custom batch for them. Prices for custom manufacturing shoot up exponentially.

As for your point about marketing hype - I totally agree.

LCD makers (and laptop manufacturers) want to ride on the coat tails of the marketing halo created by the "p" suffixes on TV's. You might have noticed how screens are being marketed with the "p" suffixes these days; not the actual resolution or the code.

Why would you want to incur the expense of educating a common non-geek about vertical pixels and DPI's; while you can just spout slogans such as "1080p" or "Full HD" and immediately fire neurons in the customers brain associating the computer screen with the huge bright screens he/she sees as soon as one enters a big box store. TV makers over the past few years have converted the HDTV into a mass "must have" for our society, so even if you don't own one, you will associate it with a positive acquisition impulse.

Laptop sold.. kaching.. $$ to the manufacturer!

 

I did.
My monitor on my desktop is 16:9 and I chose it in preference to any number of WUXGA monitors that are available.

And what makes you think I feel the need to defend my actions?
I couldn't care less what anyone else thinks of my purchases because they're not me, so their needs are not the same as me, so their opinion is insignificant.

 

Another point - on a 13,3" laptop 1280*800 is ideal - smaller pixel means you'd need to increase the DPI... which doesn't always plays nice - I have heard it has improved on Vista over XP though.

So you either get more pixels on such a small laptop or loose...

But its true that the marketing department uses all sorts of nonsense...
I did use the phrasing "dumb mob" in connection with apple once - throw in some fancy marketing and you'll find enough people who'd buy it, no matter if its worse...
In the same way... say its eco whatnot and most German will happily pay the state even more money... (some recent additional environmental tax... not to forget - petrol is over 70% tax... most of it labelled "environmental" too - and its used for the pension fund) - why does it work... because people can claim being more moral and what have not... they pay for the "environment" and that's "green"... same way that apple wants to be superior... even if components aren't - that's how its marketed.

Same with screens - its only marketing... and the "dumb mob" just buys it...