The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Fair enough, but I'm also picking it was also a lot cheaper than the WUXGA models?

The fact your posting in a thread titled "The official 16:9 screen protest thread" trying to promote the virtues of the exact screen aspect the thread is bleating about and seem to have a lot of trouble understanding basic maths as to the reason why it is technically inferior for all but one usage.

Personally, if I liked 16:9, I wouldn't bother expending so much energy on trying to convince others the world is flat in a thread titled about disliking it.

 

I got it, it is just the manufactures' decisions that drives me crazy. They assemble production lines to make useless cosmetic modifications, but not for something as important as the screen. I guess the consumers are in great part responsible. I don’t want to offend anyone, but many consumers really act as idiot choosing little toys because they are purple, they are new and they can be used as a mirror to fix the hair. I would think that at least the business/professional field would be immune to these fashions, but I may be unfortunately wrong. In a world where even thinkpads can come red, white, glossy or with leather, what can I say? They can sell trash as it was a premium product, and have their consumers defending them. I would think that humanity would become smarter with time… well, at least the marketers are becoming smarter with time. They can make you believe that life is good as long as your most important concerns are restricted to movies, games, color and shininess.

I don’t blame the German consumer in this case. I have been in undeveloped countries in Asia and South America. It is a really sad disaster the combination of greed, marketers, lawless and corrupt institutions. I wish more people had a concern with the color green and many people in developed countries don’t realize the luck they had just for being born there. The problem is the consumer disinformation and the opportunism of greed disguised like fake environmentalism. They sell supposedly "green" products not concerned about trees, but the color of your dollars.

 

Good point. P means exactly nothing when talking about an LCD. It's not a 1080p display, it's a 1920x1080 display. I can see FullHD, because that actually implies a resolution... but progressive scan? There's no scan in LCDs...

 

Much of the bellyaching going on here is much ado about nothing. After all, more than 25 years after CDs were introduced you can still buy vinyl records and phonographs can't you?

 

Not true.
Try to buy a new 4:3 notebook.
All the bellyaching here is to guarantee at least what you are saying.
As I said, if people are happy with what they have, great, keep listening Louis Armstrong singing What a Wonderful World. Otherwise, open your mounth and shout.

 

That's the point - they still exist - old screens just die - are no longer made...

And speaking of vinyl records - they are still made - but only very few... limited edition ones like "Another way to die" (Bond title, also a singly on Vinyl) - no mainstream music is produced on vinyl - on the other hand - to the majority of people CDs were a gain - and the areas that still benefit from then can still get them.

With 16:9 screens - all you gain is a "better filled out picture" in films - no other gains at all.
With 16:10 you at least weren't loosing anything - especially as someone pointed out - the overall resolution went up - from a height of 768 (standard on 4:3) to 800 (standard on 16:10) - again the "high end" resolution would have possibly lost some, but the majority gained.

 

Actually, it's not that "p" is meaningless, it's just that all LCDs are "p" because they don't interpolate. An LCD marketed as "1080i" is really downsampling that 1080i signal to 720p. They just want to market the higher number, but given the choice between a 720p and a 1080i signal, a 720p LCD will look better when using a 720p signal. It's slight but noticable.

So it is in actuality a 1080p display. 1080p is an industry code just like WXGA.

 

I guess it is already old article, but...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2328932,00.asp
So, even editors of PC magazines complain about 16:9...

Ah, for those already stucked with 16:9, this can explain your happiness:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LTO_dZUvbJA
=P

 

Unless we organise ourself and make our protests heard, nothing will happen...

 

Even if we protest to the moon and back, it won't matter. It's cheaper, and 80% of the laptop-buying public won't care.

 

I am totally up to not buying 16:9 for as long as I can and write complaining letters

One funny thing... around 9min7sec the guy explain why we believe that synthetic happiness has inferior quality, and he basically says that capitalist society would be destroyed if we started to believe that we don't need to have what we want to be happy...

But now we have an amazing different situation: the capitalist manufactures actually want to make us believe that we can be happy with what we can have instead of what we want... They are becoming communists!!!

 

I agree, but at least we can try. Maybe they will introduce it as an option, you never know.

 

What a nice point

It would be a funny if you had the money to start a newspaper - make it a communist one and list the manufacturers as honourable members
They'd be fuming

 

Hahahah, great idea. +1 Rep.

 

Excuse a novice's query here... but the justification of going from 16:10 to 16:9 is that it conforms more with the TV/DVD for movie ratios.

It seemed to me that when I watched movies, etc on my laptop -- there was distortion on the screen, i.e., everything was stretched just a little bit wide. I assumed that going to the 16:9 was a way of eliminating that distortion. Is that not the case?

I certainly would welcome the reduction of distortion even at the loss of some real-estate and I am some who needs a LOT of real estate when I work. I often put my 2 lappys (one an HP Pavilion 14.1" the other an Asus 15.4") side by side when I am in the midst of writing an article. I am a legal academic and the number of documents I need to keep open to reference -- some of my own and some written by others -- is sometimes overwhelming. But I would still relinquish it if it reduced distortion in the movies I watch which I do all the time -- as this is my only way to watch movies that I have right now.

 

Distortion only happens if you have it stretch the image to fit the screen, the same way your TV stretches the 480 scan lines of your traditional square TV to the widescreen. Just set it to keep aspect and you'll be fine. But this should only affect it if you're running the application full screen, not in a window.

With 16:10 you'll just get black bars on top and bottom of the image. No big deal.

 

Justitia, isn't you complaining here?

http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=458582

So, that 1366x768 is one of the reasons for this protest

Many of us understand that notebooks are not TVs, especially the small ones, and we use it more as an instrument of work than for fun. We need vertical space with reasonable (readable) size of letters. If the main use of a notebook is for fun, no problem, there are 16:9 glossy displays in any domestic notebook to make happy any hollywood/blockbuster/gamer fan. Just let us happy with 16:10 matte displays in the professional ones

 

Distortion only happens if you ask whatever program playing the movies to stretch it to fit your screen. The same thing will happen if you ask a 16:9 HDTV to play regular cable(which is 4:3): it will stretch it and everything will look wider. 16:9 doesn't really solve anything in that matter since it wasn't an issue to begin with.

 

I hadn't understood about "keep the aspect ratio" and don't think I always opted for it; now I know -- so now I will. so yeah, definitely hi-res 16:10 is the way to go.

And some of us are serious multi-taskers and make sure we use our lappys for our professional life and our fun. Being holed up in the outskirts of China far from Bejing without some good movies to watch when work is over is not always pleasant. Matte and multi-fuctional is the byword in the world I operate in.

 

So welcome to the official 16:9 screen protest
One more to the 16:10 side of the force

PS: hey, I love movies too and have been in the outskirts of India far from Mumbai or Delhi! I was just criticizing people who buy laptops thinking that they are nothing more than just portable dvd players

 

Why was the OP banned???? This is a historical thread he/she created....

 

Because not all people decide to play nicely here. It happens. Even if they contribute things, some people can still be an overall bane to the community. It's best to not question those things too hard, it ends up making moderators think you might be an alt. Especially with a low post count.

 

I personally like the 16:9 display...

 

Hmm...do I see a trend?

Besides, whats not to love about 16:9? If you don't like one, you can always go with a differant laptop. Not everyone has the same taste

 

Only if there were different laptops...

I still got the old SZ - but assume I would want a laptop which is similar compared to others as the SZ was back then.

Sony Z - only choice 16:9 - and there is no laptop that comes close in terms of small size & performance.

Yes, you get weaker lighter ones that are smaller, and you get 17" monsters that are more powerful - but nothing compares to the Z.

Your comment only works if there is choice - as there isn't any - well, how should we chose?

 

If you read just some few past messages before post, you will see plenty of reasons. Besides 16:9 being a corn-fed beef, as Justitia well said, it is becoming increasingly hard to find 16:10. HP, for example, made its whole new line 16:9. Thank god some manufactures like Lenovo and Dell are keeping some 16:10 (maybe exactly because many consumers like us are complaining, take a look in the Lenovo and Dell's forums). If you pay attention, people who like 16:9 in general also don't have problems with 16:10, but many people who like 16:10 hate 16:9. My guess? Notebook companies chickened out by the expectation of recession made the change because it is cheap to buy those screens from LCD manufactures, even knowing that in fact they are not the best screens for notebooks, although they will tell you exactly the opposite. It is not the LCD manufactures forcing the poor notebook companies to change, it is not the consumers asking for super horizontal screens, it is in fact a bunch of notebook companies chickened out by the recession and using their marketing muscles to make the consumers' mind.

Reference: http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=458582&page=3
PS: Nothing against people who like 16:9, I am just making the point that 16:9 is not what some companies are advertising and telling that many consumers (most?) are not happy.

 

All valid points, but my opinion is if the laptop doesn't meet your desires, in this case 16:10 or whatever else, you can look to a differant company. New tech is always coming out and so laptops are getting smaller and more powerful. Staying with any single company can really limit your choices. Tech is changing so its a take or leave it, love it or hate it relationship. I've never found anything that I can't do on any screen. But it's also important to do the homework and research what you want. Of course companies are going to push thier product and make claims based on biased benchmarking and such, but an informed customer is going to know what they are getting. Companies are always going to go the direction that produces the biggest profit. Not to mention thiers always external displays.

Like I say, just gotta ride the wave sometimes.

 

What good are external displays when they change to 16:9 too?

And besides - are you going to pay for an external display and then cover the extra charges when I go on holiday?

And choosing will only work if there is choice - there isn't any though.

 

The point is that the whole industry is changing, not just a handful of mainstream machines.

Say for example that I preferred a 4:3 laptop, you think I'd find one easily? No I wouldn't; I'd have to consider refurbished or used. The same situation will eventually happen with 16:10.

The whole argument "if you don't like it don't buy it" is only a temporary measure since in the long run, applying that will mean NOT buying at all since eventually the whole market will shift towards that.

Even external monitors will eventually. Most new monitors are 16:9.

 

With the push for 16:9 aspect ratios the options for laptops with a 15" or smaller screen to have a vertical resolution over 768. Have we reverted back to the mid 90's? Graphic artists, programmers, network/systems admins, anyone using any office-related applications need the vertical real estate. I guess these areas are viewed as nitch-markets, I don't see the logic behind the $1,000 buy-in price for something with a higher resolution display to have otherwise identical specs to a $600-$700 system.

 

Well seeing as how going to 16:9 is industry wide, you do have a choice. Get one or not. No one says you have to have a computer, and besides, in all honesty, what good is 16:10 going to do when everything is optimized for 16:9? It's really not a very large change in the grand scheme of things. But to each his own. As long as it presents a clear, detailed, crisp picture, it's fine by me.

 

And I should be deprived of the world of computing because I like something different than what the industry wants me to like? I shouldn't be allowed to purchase a car because I like red and all cars are blue?

The point is that everything isn't optimized for 16:9. Everything is still vertically based and the more you lose of that, the more computing becomes less convenient(still feasible, just less convenient).
- Websites are still based on the vertical factor(just compare the number of sites where you scroll up/down vs those where you scroll left/right)
- Documents are written on vertical sheets
- Code is written line to line on a vertical basis(vs a horizontal basis like say Japanese writing)

The reason the rectangle exists is because people want put more than 1 thing side by side, but even then, they also need the vertical space to compare said things.

 

...oh the optimization lie again...

Tell ME where YOU find software that is optimized for 16:9??

The ONLY product that POTENTIALLY benefits from 16:9 is films - but even they don't really as you only loose some black bars.

Tell me, does your browser have all its toolbars etc. at the left or right hand side?

So? Answer: NO.

All the menus are at the top due to the shorter travelling distance - and even Phtoshop and Dreamweaver don't gain from 16:9 although they have a large sidepanel as you LOOSE height.


Sorry, but I'm getting annoyed by this discussion....

 

I'm not trying to change opinions, frankly, what you like is what you like and that doesn't matter. To be perfectly honest, sure I'd rather have more screen space, but it's nothing I'm going to lose sleep about. Bigger is better, but ride the wave. Overall the industry is not just changing it on a whim. Theres a reason behind the move be it profits, cheaper panels ect. Maybe they are changing it on a whim. Since I don't control it it really doesn't matter what I say or want.

 

What one person says or wants in fact doesn't matter very much, unless you are a powerful ruthless dictator... What many people say or want... even a powerful ruthless dictator would eventually have to listen. I am just one, and I am just making my voice loud. People should learn how to make their voices louder not just for notebooks but many other aspects of life.

 

I doubt any of us are losing sleep because of a change in a consumer product(well I'm not at least), we're just unhappy. We'll get over it someday I'm sure, but it's not a reason to be any less unhappy about it now.

yes, the industry is what it is, but when they start cutting corners to save costs at the determined of the consumer, it's not a good thing.

 

If that's the case then the market will soon reveal it. If they don't give the consumer what they want, they will soon go out of business. Unless, of course, if it is a monopoly.

 

...and that's pretty much what it is...

 

Agreed with Krane, if enough consumers are unhappy with a product, it's going to drop the demand and the companies will have to tailor to those demands, which may in the first place, be cause for the change. No one makes a change unless they feel it will benefit the company. The only way to benefit the company, and continue making a profit is to design a product that is going to meet the needs of the consumer.

 

You're forgetting something - the majority of users is computer illiterate - and wont see it as a the disadvantage it is.

 

More like an oligopoly. The notebook market is basically just a few large major players. What one does, they all do, hence the 16:9 industry-wide adoption. If Company A adopts it and saves 0.5% on their manufacturing costs, B, C, and D have to otherwise they will be at a significant competitive disadvantage.

 

I don’t know if the future of displays will be 16:9 or 16:10. I really think that the 2008 recession played a big role in the decision to bring 16:9. Anticipating fewer sales in a market with less credit, the companies decided to make cheaper products, being LCDs a big part of the costs. What makes me mad are the also cheap excuses used by the companies: “we were forced to make this decision by the LCD manufactures”, “we are doing what our consumers are demanding” or “we are improving the consumers’ experience with their notebooks”… They could at least be honest and say “well, you know, it is a difficult time, so we have this notebook with an inferior screen if you want… but we added usb 3.0 to make you less miserable”. I would accept that better. And what gives me more certainty about what is going on is the fact that two big ones, Lenovo and apparently Dell, are not going to fully implement 16:9 yet: they are being more cautious (maybe because of complains like this thread) and keeping some models in their new business lines, which have more exigent consumers, with 16:10. Anyway, in the end I agree, it is $$$ who speaks, and that is why I said bye-bye to the ones like HP and going with companies still offering what I want (and not trying to push products counting on the consumer’s naivety).

 

Does anyone have any proof that 16:9 panels are intrinsically cheaper to produce than 16:10 ones?

Or just don't see it as a disadvantage full stop.

I doubt any manufacturers are aware of this threads existence, let alone care.

 

I personally don't have this specifically information since this is not my area of expertise, but screens with the 16:9 format are already being produced in large scale for TVs and then the user mtneer brought us an important information earlier:

So, you just take something already being produced in large scale for TVs and add in notebooks, avoiding so manufacturing complexities. The problem is: notebooks are not TVs.

If certain manufacture doesn't care about listening consumers, it doesn't deserve my attention either, and the whole business teaching about pay attention on what the consumers want would be another lie. MBA students would be really wasting their money

 

They aren't the same panels though.
The same aspect ratio, yes, but not the same panels - I don't see any 40" laptops out there.

There's a difference between listening to their customer base as a whole and pandering to the wants of a small number of people who get worked up over display aspect ratios.

As I'm sure I said before, the total number of people who have posted in this thread complaining about 16:9 displays are but a drop in the ocean compared to the total number of people purchasing laptops, so to assume that the views expressed here are indicative of the market as a whole is pretty ridiculous.
Now, yes, I'm sure there are some people out there who would prefer 16:10 screens but either don't feel it's important enough to get worked up about or aren't aware of outlets such as this to make themselves heard. But if the majority of customers really didn't want 16:9 screens, then d'you not think that there would be more of an outcry?

 

I suspect (again, not an expertise) that the aspect ratio plays a big role. Maybe to adjust the assembly line while keeping the same aspect ratio is easier than adjust the assembly line for different aspect ratios. Otherwise, there would be no difference between 14" and 15.6" or 14" and 14.1" in terms of production.

But you must remember that the market is not homogeneous. Companies segment the market. That is why you have, for example, glossy domestic notebooks and matte business notebooks (plus more subdivisions inside these niches). My impression talking to friends, work colleagues and reading forums is that people using notebooks mostly for work don't like 16:9 as they don't like glossy displays, being up to swallow them in general because they can plug an external monitor or dock. They accepted the transition from 4:3 to 16:10, but think that companies are pushing too hard 16:9. I don't know, maybe I live in a drop of the ocean, but so why lenovo and dell are being so cautions?

Again, I am fine with the existence of 16:9. I am not fine with the disappearance of 16:10. I am just doing what I can to guarantee the co-existence of both, if necessary in different market niches.

PS: Just adding a comment... if it is not possible the co-existence of both given the assembly costs, then sorry, I go with 16:10 and I will defend it as long as I can. People who like 16:9 are free to defend 16:9. "I can disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" and my right to use 16:10. And I think it is pretty rational the reasons to use 16:10 instead of 16:9.

 

I'm on a 4:3 crt and in my opinion it's more comfortable at 1024*768 than any 16:9 could ever be. Unless that 16:9 was also taller somehow, which I don't see happening.

Edit: Taller meaning physical height, not resolution.

I agree with Cherudes friends; going from 4:3 to 16:10 wasn't a huge deal, but 16:9 leaves me feeling squeezed.

 

I'm sorry but I just can't see it myself.
Surely different physical sizes/pixel densities must be far more important issues when it comes to production than aspect ratios? After all, aspect ratios are just randomly decided-upon, so it would make no sense if one were intrinsically cheaper.

Either way, unless someone can show conclusively that it was immediately cheaper for manufacturers to switch from producing 16:10 displays and start producing 16:9 displays in sizes and resolutions that weren't already being widely used, then this argument that the companies are sacrificing what customers want for the sake of money has to be withdrawn.

Perhaps they're retaining 16:10 models because they have some 16:10 panels stocked up that they need to use up?
Who knows what the reasoning is.

As I said before, I'm not trying to claim that the people in this thread are the only ones who would prefer 16:10 displays but I honestly just don't see the manufacturers having made the switch if the majority of their customers didn't want it.

 

Ratios are not randomly decided. Certain ratios fit better certain resolutions, which demand certain sizes/pixel densities, and companies are picking the ratios currently used by tvs, which has already large scale production.

You are forgetting they need to guarantee the offer of those screens for at least 3-5 years ahead in order to supply the necessary parts in case of consumers using their warranties. I don't think they are just finishing the current stock of screens they have now and forgetting about the future.

Yes, and everyone was crying to have corn-fed beef after the second world war...

 

The issue is that most people don't know or don't care. They're all lemmings that take what's offered and don't give a damn if their machine is 16:9 or 16:10, they just want their machine to work. It's the geek minority that have the biggest voice because they are the ones that speak up and actually understand the underlying issue.

Ask your average consumer what their resolution is, let alone the aspect, and they'll just look back at you with a dumb stare.