The official 16:9 screen protest thread

Keep fighting the good fight!!! Vote with your wallets!!!!!

 

I can use my laptop on an economy airplane seat. A 1680x1050 15.4" laptop won't fit, it's too tall, and they never made a 1680x1050 14" machine, at least not commonly.

The main people who have "lost" are the people who have 17" and larger "laptops", the barely-mobile gaming and media machines. And they lost 120 vertical pixels. On the other hand, 15" (the most common form factor) has significantly gained by getting 1920x1080 screens where only up to 1680x1050 was available before.

 

The other group that has lost is the "small one" - 13", 13,3"

They either get fewer pixels or tiny pixels so that they can't read the screen or need to scale up the DPI loosing space again.

 

I honestly don't mind the 16:9 movement as much as some, what I mind is the possible foreseeable future. The movie industry is already starting to come out with wider widescreens and if Krane is correct about laptops following the trend, soon the Sony Vaio P will be the form factor for every laptop >.>

There comes a point where "wide" simply isn't practical for laptops and at that point, if the TV industry keeps going wide, then the laptop industry won't(or should not at least) follow.

 

If you had the money.... squash a laptop to be 16:10 (and yes, it will break) and mail the result to the CEO

 

Worst of all is the death of 15-inch 1920x1200, I pretty much have to get a 17-incher as my next laptop to prevent downgrading my screen.

 

here's the crux of my issue. mobile gaming powerhouse cards are NOT going to fit in <15.4" chassis. it may be nice to have a 13" with 1080p resolution; but at 15.4"+, 1080p is a STEP DOWN. hell, i "might" be able to stomach a 16:9 screen on a gaming laptop, but it would have to be at a resolution ABOVE 1080p.

there is simply no reason to offer < or = to 1080p on a 15.4"+ laptop. it's absolutely retarded that we're being offered such. 5850 radeon in a 14" w/ 1080p? sure! 5850 in a 15.4" w/ 1080p? forget it. 5850 in a 17" w/ 1080p? that's just beyond stupid.

precisely

 

...did you ever consider that the majority of people who use laptops do not do so for gaming?

I'm not sure what your gripe with a 5850 in a 15.6" chassis is, though... it's an insanely fast card that sinks a lot of power, and just the fact that it can even be used with GDDR5 in a 15" is amazing. There's no way a 14" could cool that, and I'm not sure that it would be worth having a 1080p screen in a 14" form factor. I can barely make out the individual pixels on my Envy, and I have pretty good eyesight. A smaller screen with that resolution would be mostly pointless.

 

i'm not trying to sidebar on GPU's. We can discuss that via PM if you'd like. it IS slower than my gtx 260m.

here, again, is the dictatorship of the industry. those who don't like a higher resolution can scale, use larger font, etc. those who want a higher resolution can't upscale; they're stuck. that is why those in favor of these "mid-level" resolutions like 1600x900 are the bane of my existence. you can always adapt to a higher resolution screen; you cannot expand real-estate on a lower resolution one.

there is, frankly, no reason why this push for 16:9 shouldn't have been accompanied by 2560x1440 screens on 17" (or at least 18") laptops. and yes, 15.4" should be 2133x1200.

this "argument" has dragged on for MONTHS without most squarely understanding the real issue:

you're paying more (or equivelent amounts) for less. it's my personal opinion that 16:9 isn't as great functionally or asethetically as 16:10; but it's a fact that offerings > 1920x1080 have disappeared. stop catering to the enthusiast sector (bleeding-edge, performance minded) and the costs to everyone will eventually rise (either directly, or in terms of slowed innovation speed).

i love that sager crams a 5870 into a 15.6". i hate that it has a 1080p screen. if it MUST have 16:9, it needs to step up to a higher resolution.

i honestly lament for the days when the higher resolutions were available; when gaming didn't hit a phony "glass ceiling" of performance because of a resolution limitation. even 4Mp gamers are approaching this for single-GPU solutions. lousy 2Mp "1080p" gaming has pretty much topped out for mobile card single-GPU solutions.

i weep for humanity.

 

The subset of people like you who actually want these screens is so small it's not feasible for manufacturers to pursue it.

 

ya'll are just blind then.

money talks. i won't be spending any of mine on laptop offerings. and considering my laptop will outpower netbooks for at least the next 5-6 years--i won't be succumbing to buying one of those just for "portability".

looks like i'll be going back to desktop gaming; where at least i can have options.

thanks, xbox & ps3--for ruining gaming with the useless, moronic 1080p designator.

 

Well desktop monitors are moving to 16:9 too, but some larger ones(24"+) are offering resolutions superior to 1080p. But I suppose you have a bit more choices for monitor aspect ratios in the desktop world due to the screen being a separate part from the computer hardware.

 

the 22" CRT i bought back in 2002 had a 1920x1440 resolution. i've never been able to play on something with that high of a resolution since. while solutions do exist...they are for 24" or larger, as you stated.

the industry has been in a coma for a decade.

 

how exactly is there more space for numberpads?

 

16:9 laptops are typically wider than their 16:10 variants since the diagonal also changes.

Ex: 15.4" vs 15.6" or 17" vs 17.3"

This in turns makes them slightly less high but longer on the length, which in turns allows for a bit more space to squeeze in a numberpad.

 

keep your keys, i want pixels.

 

Not really true, it is more the subset willing to fork out $100-$150 more for it is low. Lower yet when the premium is raised, and battery life lowered, by a higher end GPU when the people who want this usually are desktop users that could suffice with the integrated GPU.

 

1920x1200 in 15.4" laptops was never very common; compared to that, 1920x1080 is a lot more widespread.

In any case, I just bought a 15.4" with 1680x1050 and an HD 5850 and I'm quite satisfied with it; I probably would've been similarly happy with a 1920x1080 15.6", though.

 

My Envy is approaching the limit of how small the text can be without increasing the DPI in Windows. And that's ~140DPI. You want 200? You're going to have to MASSIVELY change the software ecosystem to actually work well with non-standard DPI. Even many Windows dialogs don't behave right with non-standard DPI settings.

More pixels on smaller screens is not a good idea. I agree 1366x768 15.6" screen is unusable, but it's just as unusable as a 2133x1200 screen (~160DPI).

 

2133x1200 would be perfect for "high-end" adopters. forced into the 16:9 ratio.

if it's really that much of a problem with windows...just wait till the next service pack comes out (or windows 8). it'll probably as easy as selecting "XL SIZE" from an accessibility option.

i happen to prefer smaller. what i need is a desktop replacement. what i can't carry around with me is a desktop replacement. 15.4" was a compromise. i won't compromise further on resolution or performance.

 

Could pick up a more recent 4:3 ThinkPad along with QXGA LCD, just to see if you like it.

 

Woo for 12" X61 tablet with 1400*1050?

 

The pixel density on a 12" SXGA+ is 140, while 170 on a 15" QXGA.

 

You have the extremeists/purists who want the 2133x1200 on a 14" and while my eyes are good I'm not sure the are up to that task for the amount of time I spend on my machine. Again I'd be satified with 14" 1600x900 or 15.6" 1080P but I prefer the smaller form factor so the 14" is really preferable. I'd even like a 13.3" 1600x900. BTW; I like the font icon size etc on 11.6" 1366x768 notebook screens.

My complain is "just give me the option"! let me get the 14" 1600x900 and let it be a high quality display. Give me the option to spend more on it.

 

Sorry, my mistake, movies on an aeroplane economy seat as well...

1200 was available in 1993 on dells whole range in 15.4" 16:10, so what are you talking about? alienware, sager, HP, Lenovo, have all had 1200 high 16:10 15.4" screens also.
You might be able to use your notebook easier than I can use mine in an airplane, but you can't stop the FACTs, that the screen is smaller, the notebook footprint is bigger, and you can't have the same ultimate resolution.

I agree, 14" moving to 16:10 was a loss of screen area and vertical resolution, 16:9 takes the loss further by reducing screen area another 5.5 sq inches and all you gain is another useless [without added vertical] 160 pixels sideways.

I still want to see the gains that aren't subjective or based on higher DPI, which is achieved at the expense of screen area, like I said to you before, if you want more DPI, use a WM device at twice the notebook DPI in a 3.8" 800x480 screen....by your logic, thats a "gain"

yes it is, but if you put your blinkers on and squint your eyes like some here do, you might start thinking it's a gain to use 1080
I would say being fed 1440x900 or 1600x900 instead of 1680x1050 isn't exactly a gain either, you lose 80 sideways and 150 vertical, which is probably why the manufacturers couldn't wait to replace it with 1440x900 in view of the crap they're pushing now.

Some of them are just as deep also.

Congradulations on what you just bought, it's my favourite size/aspect/resolution, unlikely to ever be repeated again

Weren't you the one telling us the other day about DPI being the big "gain" of 1080 over 1200?

 

The point is, all this discussion is unnecessary, if they just make different kinds of screens to accommodate different people's needs. Why not more choices? Totally unnecessary!

 

4:3 > 16:9

In Business laptops.

 

....
Enjoy your 20:1 screen in a few years.

THERE IS NO CHOICE!!!!

And that is the problem.
If there actually were the choice between 4:3, 16:10 and 16:9 nobody would complain - at all.

Its just that we are forced to use a worse format.

I'm not buying a laptop to be a glorified DVD player which is what most companies think it is as it seems...

 

the BS problem is that because the 15.4" size is being dropped in favor of 15.6", the unwashed masses believe that they are somehow getting a better deal; that somehow they're getting "more" laptop for the same price.

they're actually getting LESS laptop for the same price. 10% screen height > your stupid keypad.

 

In the ideal world, we'd have more choice. We'd be able to get any aspect ratio without the technology being years old.

However, in the best worlds consumers would also know what they wanted and what they needed(and more importantly how to differentiate between both of those things) so that's asking for a lot lol

 

Most business people who buy laptops in large enough quantities (not startups and small business people) are not involved in deciding the specifications of their laptops. Typically, its the "IT Department" that decides on the purchase and rolls it out to users. In most cases, the "IT Department" might be an outsourced company (EDS et al) whose intentions are not to provide the latest and greatest in customer ease or productivity - their intentions are to save money. If they can save $50 on each machine by buying a 16:9, made-for-Hollywood laptop - they would. $50 x 20000 = a million dollars. Even, if the "IT folks" were in-house - they are typically seen as a "cost" center and are under tremendous pressure to cut spending. So, given a chance to save a million dollars, who wouldn't.

Now think of the average unwashed user out there who goes to Best Buy and picks up whatever looks pretty. They, are in charge of their dollar spend. Manufacturers will do whatever is necessary to capture their attention. That is why screen resolutions have been dumbed down into the "HD" suffixes: FHD, 1/2 HD, 3/4 HD anyone? If the computers were marketed to technical or IT folks, they wouldn't make it so hard to figure out the actual resolution.

So, unless business users are suddenly involved in specifying what they want, OEMs are not going out of the way to court them. Laptops will be marketed towards the average, barely-literate flunkie out there who buys laptops to watch movies and play chatroulette.

 

Font size/icon size and resolution are independent of each other. Older OS like Windows XP did not scale fonts and icons well, but Windows Vista and later do a beautiful job of scaling.

A 1920x1200 15" screen would be an improvement for everyone over a 1366x768 15". Nobodies eyes would be strained. I believe we will see the market swing back to higher resolutions with the introduction of the iphone 4g.

Consider the following illustration. It is a bit extreme but it does explain a lot. Same font size, but different resolutions:

 

I work for a Telcom the recently purchased alot of Laptops and converted the managers to them. They do dock them at work and take them home at night. A pimary consideration was they had to have native 1280x1024. The intent is to convert all associate computers at some point in the future to laptops as well meaning many thousands of 1280x1024 laptops.

The point is MANY companies use software, proprietary and otherwise, that has a screen requirement. Alot of the older, especially the propritetary, programs have a fixed or at least minimum screen requirement. That makes screen selection a number one priority............

 

BINGO!

that's what i've been lamenting for at least 2-3 years. people decry the higher resolutions as "too straining". B.S.

keep everything the same size; render/display it with 2x-3x as many pixels. that's what i really want.

 

The problem is mainly with older applications. They do not support the really high DPI. As we migrate to more modern programs using the more recent compilers this issue will SLOWLY fade away..............

 

Not only am I protesting the existence of 16:9 displays in laptops, but I am also protesting this trend of extremely low resolutions (with low vertical pixel counts) on rather large displays!

In my opinion, screen sizes should follow this trend:

Netbooks (8.9-10.2" screen size)
XGA / 1024x768 / 4:3 aspect ratio
Netbooks should not use widescreen displays. Making this change would give netbooks much-needed vertical pixels for less scrolling (a 600 vertical pixel count is just awful). Additionally, the chassis design changes to accomodate a 4:3 display (making the netbook deeper) would enable netbook makers to more easily include decently-sized touchpads and keyboards. Without having to resort to annoying measures like integrating the buttons into the touchpad surface.

Ultraportables (11.6-12.1" screen size)
WXGA / 1280x800 / 16:10 aspect ratio
For CULVs and premium ultraportables, 1280x800 is the perfect resolution, offering both more horizontal and vertical pixels than 1024x768 without increasing the DPI so much it's hard on the eyes. The resolution is still more than adequate for viewing 720p HD video content.

Thin and light (13.3-14.1" screen size)
WSXGA / 1440x900 / 16:10 aspect ratio
This is pretty much perfect in terms of both readability and vertical pixels to reduce excessive scrolling. This resolution is available on some business 14" laptops (such as the Thinkpad T400) and it fits the form factor with aplomb. It may be slightly too small on 13.3" displays for some people, but I believe it would be fine.

Mainstream (15.6-16.4" screen size)
WSXGA+ / 1680x1050 / 16:10 aspect ratio
For 15" and 16" laptops, this is the best screen resolution in terms of pixel count and ease of readability. Some people might like a full WUXGA display on such a laptop, but I personally think it's a bit too much for the screen size (can be hard on the eyes). Several laptops of this size actually already exist (Asus G50Vt-A1, MSI GX640, etc), but it's not common enough--and it should be the default resolution for a panel this size!

Desktop replacement (17.3"-18.4" screen size)
WUXGA / 1920x1200 / 16:10 aspect ratio
For something this large, this resolution works best. The screen size is big enough that the elements aren't too small to read comfortably. We get lots of good vertical and horizontal pixels; easy to have two separate documents or windows open at once, side-by-side.

See, laptop makers?! 16:9 is totally unnecessary!

Adjusting things in Windows to keep up with the higher DPI typically causes massive distortion of GUI elements. For years I chose to run my desktop's LCD at a lower-than-native resolution because it was too small to read comfortably, and adjusting the DPI settings caused a lot of GUI elements to break.

I do not know if this has been fixed in Windows 7.

 

I must admit I find the lack of screen area associated with 16:9 screens frustrating. To get the same vertical size as my 17" 5:4 desktop screen I have to get a monitor that's 50% wider. The problem is often the size of a desk monitor is limited by available horizontal space, not height. All the modern 16:9 desk screens make me miss my old 1600x1200 LCD.

In a small but full featured laptop (ie with optical drive, not a netbook) I would prefer my keyboard define the width of the computer. With a 16:9 screen I get less area the older 16:10 or even the 4:3. I have a 14" notebook with a 4:3 SXGA+ screen. I find that to be a very nice size and resolution for a lightweight computer. It feels smaller than the modern 14" computers yet offers a screen with better vertical resolution than any current 14" class screen.

Things also aren't that rosy when we look at desktop screens. If you want a lower DPI so you can sit farther from you screen you are now basically stuck getting a very wide display. I've found the old 5:4 17" and 19" displays are great for most work because they aren't too wide yet offer great screen area. My old UXGA 20.1" was also very nice for the same reason. It was a lot of actual screen area without taking up a lot of desk space. As I mentioned before, having to make my monitor 50% wider just to get the same vertical size I used to have isn't cool.

Personally, I would love to see 16:10 and 4:3 options back on laptops that about the same width as the keyboard. When you start to go to wider computers then I'm more tolerant of wider aspect ratio displays. I had a 15" 4:3 computer and as well as a few 15.4 laptops. I prefer the size and shape of the 15.4 to the older 15". Even if we were talking 1680x1050 vs 1600x1200 I think I would prefer the 15.4 format. Of course since I got 1920x1200 in my M4400 the 15.4 format is even better! I find that 15.6 is getting a bit too wide and tends to make me feel a 15" class notebook has moved from an easily portable computer into the more lugable class like a 17" laptop. However, I am somewhat forgiving of the extra width since they normally use that to add on the number pad. That's a useful addition which I wished they had tried to squeeze into the older 15.4" models.

Still, not all is bad with the new 16:9 screens. If you are a budget conscious resolution hound they are actually quite nice. It wasn't that long ago that it was really expensive to get any screen with ~1080 vertical pixels. The best you could hope for was a deal on a 5:4 screen. While I don't prefer a 1080 16:9 screen to an WUXGA screen, I do prefer it to a 1680x1050 screen. I like that you can get almost WUXGA for under $200 where as UWXGA previously was only available in 24" or larger displays if you were looking for a desk screen. I think I would accept a 23" FHD screen for $180 vs an UWXGA for $350. That't clearly an example of the cost savings being passed on to me.

I also like that you can actually get a 14" 16:9 laptop with a 1600x900 display. While I think 1400x1050 is a great resolution for a 14" laptop, I was less happy with the 16:10 offerings of 1440x900 or 12xx x 800.

Finally, I understand that these new display sizes save the manufactures (and thus us) money. I wonder just how much money we are talking here. I wonder how much a new 17" 5:4 desk screen would cost compared to say a 20" 16:9 display. Is my 24" vs 23" example legit or was that cost difference just because 24" WUXGA panels were never that common thus always destined to be expensive. What cost difference are we talking about when we look at a 15" 4:3 vs 15.4" 16:10 vs a 15.6" 16:9?

 

1600x900 on a 14.1" laptop is probably the only acceptable use of a 16:9 resolution.

 

Here, here. If my 14.1 16:9 were 1600x900 I'd get a USB 3.0 addapter, a C300 for the main drive and some 7K500's with enclosures and be done for the next 5 years. My P9600 in the computer maybe would go to a T9900 but I'm not sure I'd need to go that far as CPU isn't a real issue........

 

I'm enjoying my Studio 14z for that reason. My old Asus X83 was 14" at 1280x800 and I always wished for the 1440x900 version. This Dell has that, just a little wider, so it's perfect.

My peeve is the use of the 1366x768 screens that are so prevalent. None of the mainstream models I could find, all of Newegg included, offered 1600x900 on a 15 to 15.6" screen. 768 vertical pixels is abysmal on that size display. It really is a downgrade from the older 1280x800 screens. I wonder why id didn't simply become 1420*800, that at least would be an extended version of the other, like the 1600 or 1440 by 900.

That's my 2 cents, for what it's worth. 900p is fine, I can deal with it.

 

are you people blind? i can sit 3 feet from my wuxga 15.4" screen and read perfectly fine (granted, i usually sit ~18" away, but i can read it from 3 feet without squinting). there must be highly rampant nearsightedness infecting the masses.

hey, i think it's great that there's plenty of folks who don't like higher resolutions. if wsxga/+ is fine for you, more power to you. it's not fine for me. i speak for a small, but visible minority to whom you simply CANNOT offer enough pixels to in their laptops. and we do not have satisfaction.

sounds like you guys seem to agree that ~130-135dpi is ideal; which makes sense, as you all seem to think wsxga+ is the best resolution for 15.4". that would also correspond to wuxga on 17".

even if i were to concede you this point (which i won't--because i'm not myopic enough to need it) where does that leave the 18" laptops? if wuxga is the ABSOLUTELY HIGHEST resolution offered; why does someone who is shelling out enough $$$ for a desktop replacement forced to have less than 130dpi?

 

Exactly the resolutions I would prefer.

As far as the 18.4" models, I'd be happy to see a larger screen that fits in with the 130-135 DPI scale. That would make me happy, I tend to sit closer to a laptop screen than I would a desktop screen and I wouldn't mind the increase.. if it were offered that is.

 

Ideally Windows would handle changes in scaling perfectly thus a high dpi screen would always be "better". At least when it comes to TV's we don't consider 1080 worse than 720 just because the pixels are smaller for the same size TV. That was also a nice plus of the old CRT screens. XGA on a 20 in screen might seem like a waste given that I used 1600x1200 but for someone with older eyes it looked just fine.

Anyway, I'm generally happy with my WUXGA 15.4" screen. On occasion I do want to lean back and just read the screen. Fortunately it doesn't look bad when dumbed down to 1280x800. Still, so long as Windows really does have a perfered resolution I think you really need to offer both high and low res screens. When looking at screens for my mother's old eyes I really try to target a dpi of 85 or less. For comfortable desk work I prefer stuff in the 90-100 dpi range. That lets you sit with the screen 3+ feet from your eyes and still be able to read things clearly.

I've always had good vision. However, when I was working on a CRT I might spend the better part of a day with my eyes 8" from the screen. At the end of the day I was literally cross eyed as I drove home. Replacing the CRT with a 20.1" LCD running at the same resolution really saved my eyes because I could finally push the screen back. I don't have trouble focusing on a 15.4" WUXGA screen but it sure is nicer sitting further back. If I weren't such a resolution junkie (CAD will do that) I could certainly see wanting the lower res screen simply so I could move away from the screen.

Of course I will admit that thanks to the keyboard being stuck on the computer you can't always move the screen as far back as I might wish.

So for older low rez eyes I think sub 90 DPI is a good thing. More typical eyes I think the 120 range is pretty good with just a few bumps to screen fonts. Smaller than than means you are a resolution junkie (me) or your trying to figure out how to fit a normal resolution screen onto a very small computer.

 

It's not that I can't see it. I can see it just fine. It's eye strain that's the problem--the GUI elements and fonts are too small, and my eyes start burning and aching after only an hour or so of use.

 

you should try blinking more.

 

A Microsoft engineer agrees with you whiners: http://10rem.net/blog/2010/04/22/ra...isplay-market-or-i-want-my-pixels-and-dpi-now

I do think that 1920x1080 on a 17" is lame. But it's fine on a 15" class machine, and 1080 is pretty decent vertical resolution for that small of a screen. He's also talking about desktop monitors instead of notebook screens.

 

I will NEVER buy anything that is NOT 16:9..

 

This describes me, I've even tried numerous hacks to decrease Microsoft's minimum DPI, but with no success.

I can barely stand looking at a 1680x1050 screen.

 

I would say Windows 7 has done a pretty good job and provides some tools for scaling things bigger. There is a 100%, 125%, and 150% selector in your display settings you can try. Also, a lot of it depends on the application developer, how they laid things out and whether they provided a zoom feature or not. Any web browser provides a nice zoom. I use the google chrome ctrl+mouse wheel zoom all the time and it increase the size of everything without relaying out all the html. Fonts get bigger with clean crisp round edges.

But then I look at something I printed and realized my screen doesn't make that great of fonts. Imagine if printers were printing at the same resolutions of today's screens...

 

So take a 16:9 monitor and turn it on it's side. Many monitors support this, and all of a sudden you have a 1080x1920 display. Almost 2000 vertical pixels! That should work for you, right?