The official 16:9 screen protest thread

There is one solution that will please everybody. Ask the manufacturers to make malleable screens that can be reshaped to any aspect ratio you want

 

To Step666 in particular:
When you make something standard, especially when it can be used in different products, you make it cheaper to produce. And if the perspective is less credit and less employment you intuitively want to make things cheaper. So 16:9 on TVs and 16:9 on notebooks preferentially with standard 1366x768 resolution. But why to make standard 16:9 instead of 16:10? First, movies are closer to 16:9, so not good idea to make 16:10 TVs unless you also change the way of making movies (because you buy TV mainly to watch movies, not notebooks!). Second, you can offer sweets in notebooks to compensate the worse screen that you can’t offer in TVs, like better processors, better USBs etc… Anyway, the fact is that I don’t know anybody who was asking for 16:9 in notebooks before it appears “as an improvement” in stores and commercials! Actually, funny, people have always asked for better angle views, but so far it didn’t come massively, in fact it has disappeared in models like thinkpads, contrary to the 16:9 format, which came massively out of the blue. So no, manufactures don’t always really improve their products. And yes, they will try to push changes to save costs (they would sell a laptop without screen if they could convince you to buy it, and I am afraid that some people would buy it… . It is up to the consumer to say if he/she accepts those changes. Sorry, I want a notebook, not a mini TV with keyboard.

 

You said it yourself, they don't give a damn.

If your average customer were to look at their new 16:9 laptop and felt that the screen wasn't as good as their last one, they would start giving a damn, even if they weren't au fait with the technical aspects of it.
But clearly that isn't happening, otherwise complaints about 16:9 screens would be far more widespread than they are.

Yes.
But that has no bearing.

They aren't using the same products in laptops and TVs. Where are the 13.3" 1366x768 TVs that are using the same panels as my DV3? Where are the 13" 1920x1080 TVs that use the same panels as the new Vaio Z? Where are the 32"+ laptops that use the same panels as the vast majority of TVs on the market?
They're not using the same panels in laptops as they are in TVs, therefore they aren't saving anything.

Unless someone can prove otherwise, there is nothing to indicate that it is cheaper to produce two different LCDs of a different size/pixel density that happen to share the same aspect ratio than it would be to produce two panels that are different sizes/pixel densities that don't have the same aspect ratio.
Either way, you're going to have two completely independent production lines for them, so how does the aspect ratio of one affect the cost of manufacturing the other?

 

I don't understand why you find it so hard to believe smaller screens would be cheaper.
According to market analysts, Displaysearch, 16:9 enables a more economic cut with existing TFT fabrication, whether their information is correct, I don't know as I'm not privvy to what the blank sizes are that they cut from, but you can't escape the mathematics that 16:9 is ALWAYS smaller in area by varying amounts of square inches depending on the diagonal size, therefore, at the very least they are saving on raw material which would, to a logical thinker, mean cost saving over tens of thousands of panels.

I agree that you don't see many complaints about 16:9, you also don't see complaints about 16:10 or 4:3 or 5:4, it won't surprise me if there is barely any complaints about the next ratio shift.
But just because you think it's great you bought a screen 4 square inches smaller than a 16:10 version with a vertical resolution unevolved from 20 years ago, doesn't mean we all have to sit here with an inane Gilligan's smile being pleased about being served up less desirable screens for our own uses.

I really would like to know your point of contention with this thread, apart from that you seemingly like your smaller, truncated 16:9 screens and have always wanted them ? or does that about sum it up?

 

I don’t know where you live, but the number of people not happy with 16:9 is far larger where I live. Even editors of pc magazines are complaining as I showed before. Moreover, I dare to say that the average consumer who had a notebook before knows that they are losing with 16:9. Even my friend who doesn’t know to change a RAM memory (but uses the laptop to actually WORK) hates 1366x768 for losing vertical space. Nevertheless, the average consumer is also restricted by their budget. They in general buy budget laptops and don’t have option but to accept glossy 1366x768 screens and synthesize happiness. You are the only one here supporting passionately 16:9. Actually, you are the only one supporting 16:9 passionately that I ever met. Most people who say that they like 16:9 also say that they like 16:10 (that is, they are in fact indifferent).

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/hd-lcd-display,5658.html

This is so tragic that becomes funny:

" However, the trend is changing again, as most movies coming out now are produced in even wider format than 16:9. So even now 16:9 displays are becoming an issue for most users who are into serious home theater setups."

So, what's the new format? 16:2? Well, I guess that in a world where most people are incapable of writing something interesting with more than the 140-character limit the future is really flat...

 

I really want to do something organised about this, just writing our grievances on a forum won't help much. I have some cheap ideas like sending emails with our concern to newspapers/magazines laptop ODM and so on... I have no idea what good it will do, but I assume it is much more effective than just writing here.

But right now I am a bit short on time...
I still following this thread though.

 

Well, if you know whom to contact - point them to this thread.

Aren't journalists paid to do research

If they are interested this thread alone will give them so much to start on that it would require little work on your side.

 

Well arguably, I've read some PC magazine reviews stating that the "standard 720p resolution" was abysmal so I suppose we're not the only ones who aren't happy.

At the very least if 1600*900 was the standard resolution for mainstream machines over 13", it'd be a bit more ok.

 

In order to illustrate the things better to the users:

http://www.ideastorm.com/ideaView?id=087700000000ZljAAE

So that is?!?! The big improvement of 16:9 is to LOSE vertical space in order to not get letterboxes?!?! Let me see if I got it right… we are exchanging black bars in the superior and inferior parts of the screen when watching movies for no screen at all!?!? Ow, that’s really improvement…

People who complain about stretched images when watching movies in 16:10 should learn the simple act of checking off the box “to preserve the aspect ratio” in their preferred video softwares.

If 16:9 and wider fomats were so good, the world would be much wider since the beginning… Why not books in horizontal pages? Why not poems in horizontal strophes? The problem in fact is that people should read more…

Haven't you guys done that yet? I have already sent emails with links to some companies Maybe I should try letters

 

They're not "intrinsically" cheaper; rather, the panels are cut from a huge sheets that allow the 16:9 ratio to provided more usable sheets per panel.

Companies have always done that; that's just business. Still, people have to buy it to make it work. If tradition is what consumers demand, then the market for widescreen will just dry up.

That's no doubt one factor among many.

In that case, you've just answered your own question. Like I've said before, if die-hard fans of the traditional aspect ratio demand it enough, the some devision of the market will be created to cater to their wishes. Albeit, at an equally profitable price.

 

The issue is that the market doesn't "demand" anything, most of the market just soaks up whatever the industry gives them. Aspect ratio honestly isn't something to lose sleep over as we've pointed out before so it's not something that will rouse the industry if 75%(random number) of the people don't care and 25% really really try to show their unhappiness.

IMO, we'll all live, but I'm just afraid of the future. There are projections for even wider screened HDTVs to come and if the laptop industry follows, we'll soon have laptops which are shaped like chocolate bars

 

True, I am not losing my sleep with it since there are much more serious issues in the world, but it took less than one hour of my day to show my dissatisfaction and there are still some options of 16:10 in the market. If many unhappy consumers start to use their voice and pocket (not buying 16:9), maybe 16:10 will make a comeback at least in some market niches. If you start to accept silently one little thing here, other little thing there, in the end you WILL end with chocolate bars notebooks.

 

According to who's economics?

And, how many pages long is this thread again?

A twenty-five percent share is more than enough (I doubt the gaming computers industry comes near that figure) to create a market. All we need now is some enterprising division/company/individual to tool up and satisfy that need.

Anythings possible, but it's highly unlikely for the foreseeable future. For now, the industry is pretty much satisfied and set on the 16:9 ratio.

 

If that's how I've come across, I must not be expressing myself properly.
It's not that I am pro 16:9 as such, i just object to some of the ridiculous comments that have been made in this thread against 16:9 displays.
Yes everyone has their own preference and that's fine but to try and argue that something is technically inferior just because you don't like it is ridiculous (and slightly pathetic) IMO.

The new aspect ratio already exists - it's 21:9.
There's already a Philips TV on the market with that aspect ratio and even an LG mobile phone.

Well, technically that comment has no bearing on the debate about aspect ratios - it's specifically about resolution.

You'll hear no argument from me against higher resolutions.
I'd've loved it if I could've had a higher resolution screen on my DV3 but you have to work with what you can - if I could've justified it, I'd have gone for a Vaio Z with a 1920x1080 display but that's a lot of money for a laptop IMO.

As I've said, these aren't projections, this is already happening.
I can't quite see it happening for laptops though - the shape would start to become impractical when the width of the display is two-and-a-third times the height of it.

Funny you should describe them as chocolate bar shaped, the LG phone I touched upon before was called the Chocolate.

 

Which from a technical point of view is amazing and from a usability point of view pretty much pointless.

Pixels are getting so tiny that the high DPI (or rather PPI) means that you can hardly see anything.

My 13,3" SZ has 800 vertical pixels - that is enough, if I go smaller I will run into trouble and won't necessarily be easily able to read my screen.

But then again people have used Microfilm in the past too.... why not sell books and Newspapers on microfilm... (bring your own reader or microscope)

 

FOr me 1080p on a 15.6 is perfect. But then again, this is all subjective. Thankfully my eyes are quite good and sharp, some others might think that 1080p is way too high...

Thing is, that the screen ratio is starting to worry me. Last night I watched a film with ratio 2:1...and we all know we do NOT want that on out screens...

 

Well here's the thing, we didn't see laptops following TVs in the first place since originally, laptops were working machines and not used for multimedia purposes.

So really, the trend might follow and we will end up with LG chocolate type laptops

 

I'm not sure what your point is here. If not for TV there would be no laptops.

Hmm, was that sarcasm?

 

What do you mean?

 

I don't see your point either

 

Independent of the dispute between 16:10 and 16:9, I must say that I am happy to see that we all agree that notebook companies will be pushing stupidly too hard if they come with something wider than 16:9 in the future

Once again just to remember:
Notebooks are not TVs. The world seen by the screen of a notebook is less horizontal and more vertical than the world seen by the screen of a TV. It includes texts, poems, systems of equations, old pictures, lines of code and many other things optimized by a more vertical world than the one showed by the producers of hollywood.

 

I agree with you, but this is a matter of "what people want" (known as "cutting down on expenses nobody seems to care")

 

Simple, the visual interface was invented for TV. The computer interface borrow that idea.

 

OOHH!! You are going there...hmmm ok...I am not sure the relevance nowadays of the TV and the laptop display and their screen ratios...sorry

 

Well yes, but they grew to be 2 separate entities with time. Now they're coming back together. Now you're going way back when to CRT days >.>

When the laptop came to be, it was mostly used as a corporate tool i.e. a computer for those who went on business trips. They used to carry this premium of price because of their niche market. Back in those days, tell anyone that a laptop will become a multimedia device for watching movies and people wouldn't have thought so(or at least they'd have thought it was a very high premium idea).

Actually, same could be said for gaming, a computer was first developed for crunching numbers and doing other scientific use, tell anyone at that time that it would become a widespread entertainment device and they wouldn't have imagined it yet.

My point is, just because we don't SEE the industry going any wider than 16:9 doesn't mean it won't happen and THIS is what we're mostly afraid of, we've had such experiences in the past.

For all we know, computers will yet again evolve into something new concerning their main function.

But I've once again reached that point where I'm tired of going around in circles =_= I'll be back in a few weeks' time rested and ready to go back in circular arguments

 

Well you started off well enough, but then you lost me in the minutia. In fact, notebooks are indeed TVs (when configured in that manner).

In addition, you should keep in mind that the original design (to which we all know and love) in also a direct copy of that which first existed for TV! There is nothing sacred about that ratio, but it's dimensions owes it's origins to that industry. Now then, shall I extend your gratitude to Hollywood?

 

They use the same visual interface (that is, a display), which doesn't mean that they had/have the same utility/purpose. TVs were born to entertain a passive observer while computers were born as a tool to assist an active user (active because since the beginning there was an interface - keyboard - to specify commands). In terms of purpose, a computer would be closer to a calculator than a TV. Nowadays, there is certain convergence between TVs and computers, but certain, not complete. I believe that people still prefer TVs or even theaters to watch passively a good movie. On the other hand, I didn't see yet someone typing equations or reading a 150 pages text in their TVs. For these purposes, they prefer computers or Kindles (reading devices), which funnily is not wide at all. Why? Because for certain purposes we still demand VERTICAL space. If you prefer, you can say that, nowadays, computers (and so notebooks) are NOT JUST TVs. They have many other utilities and so it is kind of stupid to impose the current super wide TV display on them.

Me too. I said everything I could say here. People are free to decide what they think is good for them. I just hope that after reading this thread people can make a more conscious choice. My complaints are going directly to the companies now and my money to the ones still offering 16:10.

 

I suppose the only point in favour, perhaps, of a 21:9 display is that when used with a feature such as Aero snap in Win7, you would easily be able to fit two windows next to each other and have a very usable space for each.
It would effectively be like having two 7:6 displays next to each other.

 

Actually, TVs were invented for marketing reasons The main purpose of a TV initially wasn't to air shows, but to air commercials(hence why commercials still take like 1/3 of show time).

I do agree with the rest of your post though.

Well my personal main goal was to inform people that 16:9 doesn't yield a technical advantage over 16:10; it's a reduction in space. If people still like it, then that's all fine and dandy.

But the form factor wouldn't really be practical anymore. 21:9 is more than twice as wide as high, which means that to fit a typical backpack, you'd get a very much narrower laptop than one of the 16:10 or even 16:9 ratio.

Hey wait, I said I'd go take a break..

*goes to take a break*

 

I know and I've already agreed with you on that point.
I don't see 21:9 becoming a mainstream laptop aspect ratio based on the impracticalities it would involve.

That said, it will probably end up with something of a niche market.
The Sony Vaio P is an example of a laptop that is almost at that aspect ratio.

And, one possible point in it's favour in general (not specifically regarding laptops) would be that it is wide enough that having two windows open next to each other becomes a practical proposition.

 

*ahem* *cough* *cough*

 

Make it thinner, lighter and eliminate the horrible bezel in between, give it WUXGA on both and a good CPU/GPU combo and I'm in for that thing.

 

I can feel the pain of designers and product engineers...

 

Then I'll have to do it...after all, that is what I am studying...lol

But if you make a 15.6" with dual screens, no bezel in between, powerful CPU/GPU, WUXGA or more and thin enough, believe me, I am in for that. Even at the expense of weight and battery life.

 

Not when you consider that companies want to make money. In that case, it's brilliant.

p.s. never forget the red part.

I think this alone can kill two birds with one stone?

And just how would you carry such a device?

 

Good luck! You will need it against the frustration for trying to pack everything that consumers want.

The closest to it that I have seen is the Thinkpad W700ds:

http://www.engadget.com/2009/01/06/ces-2009-hands-on-with-lenovo-thinkpad-w700ds/

But this is more a desktop replacement than a portable notebook...

 

Well, I can dream right! And I;m guessing not many people would complain...

 

As long as it is portable and you keep vertical space
Dream is god's best gift.

 

Just to drop back in... has anybody ever seen a 16:9 screen? Its ugly as I don't know what...
(Another student brought his laptop to university...)

And its not any more useable with Excel...

Why do I say ugly...
Some people claim that a shape that contains the "golden ratio" is more aesthetically pleasing that others - no matter if its true or not, the ratio of the sides on 16:9 is just ugly...

And something else:
I'm turning my head to view all of my 13,3" 16:10 screen... so a 16:9 would be even worse...

 

I'm game.

Somehow this trend (making it easier for people who use the laptop for fun and harder for those who use it for work) reminds me of the downward trend pictured in "Idiocracy".

Internet freedom is under attack by major media corporations because they need to protect their stupid songs and silly flicks (who said Idiocracy? ), and now we also have to endure absurd screen formats on our computers because people who consider work a low priority want to watch at movies without black bands (and manufacturers can save a few square inches of LCD for the same diagonal).

Something needs to be done.

I wish there was a proprietary hardware format for movies and songs. An holographic cube whose readers would be forbidden to work with computers. A 1TB movie won't be easily shared on the net. Let the morons have their stupid songs and silly flicks, and leave the workers alone!

 

I absolutely, absolutely hate 16:9 for notebooks.



By going to 16:9 from 16:10 using the same diagonal measurement (the diameter of a circle, as shown in the above diagram), you gain 2.7% width (for whatever absolutely utterly totally unnecessary reason for computing), yet you LOSE 7.5% vertical dimension.

In real world use 16:9 results in about an inch decrease in height, but just half an inch increase in width. Gaining half an inch in width is useless already for non-movie use (I don't watch movies on my notebook - a TV is for movie watching - funnily enough I use a computer for actual computing), but to decrease the vertical by 1" whole inch to do so is utterly idiotic.

If you have a startbar or dock all along the bottom and have titlebars on windows all along the top, the usable vertical dimension is squashed even more.

16:9 is a pointless ratio for computing. Driven by nothing other than price/profit margins. You're getting less screen area/dimensions for your $$$. 16:9 equates to 5% physical surface area LOSS for any comparitive 16:10 diagonal measurement.

Separately, LCD resolutions are also increasing in the market place. Not only that, coupled with the reduction in physical screen height due to the 16:10 to 16:9 transition the text on-screen becomes smaller still, becoming almost illegible.

It's insane.

I can't buy a single Sony Vaio or Dell XPS/Studio now as a result. They're all 16:9, with stupidly high resolutions making the image transition even smaller, and are super glossy like a mirror! That's three levels of hate right there.

 

And, I assume, the next step will be 16:8.

If you don't like the glossy stuff then start contemplating the Dell E6410 which has new hardware inside and a 14.1" 16:10 matte display. However, it will be a few months before they surface in Dell Outlet at attractive prices.

But if you want something bigger then you are out of luck: The E6510 has joined the 16:9 camp.

John

 

4:3 ratio FTW.

 

I won't buy a new laptop until the manufacturers stop this horrible screens at least on certain models, they lose and I win.

 

Wish I could do that. I really need a laptop now, but cannot find a decent one that's 16:10.

The two I had my eye on were the Sony Vaio F or the Dell Studio XPS 16, but both have crappy 16:9 screens.

The very latest Macbook Pro is one notebook that keeps the 16:10 ratio, but it makes for a very expensive alternative.

 

If I were you,I'll look around in ebay for a second hand upgradable cheap lappy with 16:10 screen and replace RAM, HD and even a CPU. But if you are looking for the latest and newest available, I'm afraid you have to cough up the hard cash.

 

@Kieran: Except that with 16:9, the diagonal screen length increases. 15.4 to 15.6, 17.1 to 17.3, etc. And honestly, the change is negligible unless you're watching movies, because the lack of black bars makes it obvious. It really doesn't make sense complaining about the differences here; we're talking a change of 120 pixels in 1200.

Naw, it'll be 1.85:1, or 2.39:1 so we can watch movies just like in the theaters.

 

Watch the name-calling, guys. I'd hate to have anyone get infractions.

That said, I like my 16:9 screen on my Envy. I can actually use it on an airplane seat... the extra inch lost vertically makes it nice, even.

 

Yep, posts have been deleted. As much as you may not agree with another poster, name calling and/or insults are just silly.

But back on topic: as much as many of you dislike 16:9 screens, it's pretty unrealistic to expect manufacturers to go back to 16:10 screens. The nonvocal majority are either fine with 16:9 displays, or like them. Several 14" business laptops are keeping 16:10 displays this generation, but I'd expect them to make the transition as well (the ironic part is, 14" laptops are where 16:9 screens are beneficial - 1440x900 becomes 1600x900, an increase in horizontal pixels at no vertical cost).

 

if you consider the screen area being closer to a 13.3" 16:10 than the 14.1 it replaces, I suppose, my touch HD has a higher pixel density than any notebook, does that make a 3.8" screen better?

Here's a reminder [pic].....smaller is smaller, pity most haven't made the physical notebooks smaller to match