The official 16:9 screen protest thread

16:9 is only good for movies

for text editing/ programing / web pages/ graphics work, a portrait orientation is more preferred. Just look at all the books that have been around human society for hundreds of years, it is the natural choice.

As Pitabred mentioned, a rotation of the 16:9 monitor shall work fine, but there are not many monitors support this, as far as I can tell from my local stores, not to mention the laptop, turning a laptop side ways? it's just stupid.

the other alternative is split the 16:9 screen in two smaller portrait orientation havles, like you open a book. it works fine for web pages and text editing, but not as convinient for graphics work.

 

Honestly, I find my 1080 vertical pixels plenty for most editing jobs. And I often use two windows side-by-side, a reference and a work window. I wouldn't mind an extra 120 vertical pixels, but it would make my laptop another inch deeper, and I'd rather lose the pixels than have that. With 16:9, 15" machines have finally become properly portable, same relative height as the 16:10 14" machines, but with a lot more pixels and much higher specs.

 

Then you have a monitor that is effectively too tall for it's width. Also, I've found that many monitors don't look as good when turned vertically because of the difference in light intensity as you change the angle of the display. Most displays have a significant color shift with vertical tilt but not as much with side to side tilt. When you turn the display on it's side you now have a problem where your eyes are effectively seeing the screen from two different "vertical" tilt angles. The same pixel will have a different color to the left and right eye. I've found it's a great way to get a headache after using the computer for a few hours.

Also, if you happen to have a shelf over your monitor (or a complete hutch as I have) then you can't have a very "tall" display. That means you can't have a very wide display. The move to 16:9 displays isn't all bad. I mean you can get 1080p displays for under $200 where as a 1680x1050 display was typically a good bit more. So I like that they make resolution on the cheap better than before. However, I don't think they are better displays as compared to a 16:10 so long as you aren't watching movies. I also find they are a lousy aspect ratio for a laptop. But since the cost savings are being shared with the consumer perhaps it is better in the end. Now if we could just convince more low end computer makers to give us 1600:900 as a common resolution rather than a custom order resolution on the 15" laptops.

 

Hey now! we only complain because its highway robbery! But Ill agree that FHD+ is fine on 15 and small notebooks, but 110% unacceptable on a 17in. Honestly I am glad I ordered what I did so I wont have to worry about 16:9 for a long time, but when I do It will be a 15.6in laptop most likely.

 

That's because they're lesser quality displays. My Dell 2001FP, which is an IPS display, looks excellent top to bottom in portrait mode.

 

I really dislike the 1366x768 resolution as well. It's just stupid. I thought my old 1200x800 display was too small, and that's 32 fewer vertical pixels. But I honestly really like 1920x1080 in a 15" machine. I can watch movies with minimal black bars when I'm on the road, and I have plenty of vertical screen real-estate as far as 15" monitors go.

It's not the aspect ratio that sucks... it's the resolution.

 

I would like 1920x1080 on a 15.6" screen. However, I think I prefer the size and shape of my 15.4" screen and laptop. Since mine is 1920x1200 I'm not worries about the resolution too much. In the 14" class I think the 16:9 has given us something back. In 4:3 screens I found 1400x1050 to be a nice resolution. When wide screen notebooks came out my 1400x150 was replaced with 1440x900. Well that's better than 1280x800 but still a step down from the old 4:3 screen. With the new 16:9 screens you can get 1600x900. I like that. However, if we had the choice of a 16:10 screen with the older 1680x1050 resolution you can guess which one I would choose.

The hard part of this discussion is that like you I want the high resolution so in a case like the 14" books I see 16:9 as a way to regain some of the resolution we lost with 14" wide screens. However, in the 15" class I see 1080 as a step back from WUXGA. If we claim the same vertical resolution then 16:10 losses resolution. If we say the same horizontal, well you get the idea. However, from just the point of view which do I think makes for a nicer shaped computer, I would say something between 4:3 and 16:10 depending on the size of the computer. At netbook size I would prefer 4:3 XGA. At 15" size, well I think 16:10 is probably nicer than 4:3. Only when we start talking about 17" computers would I think 16:9 is a better aspect ratio... if we ignore resolution. However, until we have resolution so high that it doesn't mater we can't do that.

 

And then you get the problem with aesthetics that the notebook looks ridiculously wide, and not deep enough. Like I said before, my friend's Acer Aspire 5740 15.6" looks stupidly wide compared to my 15:4".

Maybe that's just me though.

 

The 15:4" sounds like it would be the one that's stupidly wide

 

I agree - 16:9 is just plain ugly...

 

lol nice one

 

Yep. 15.6" 16:9 looks stupidly wide, and at only 1366x768 the images look like they're from 1988. I'm glad I got my Dell M4400 with 1920x1200 RGBLED. Still wish there'd be another display like this available when the next refresh of AMD notebook CPUs/GPUs comes out. Sigh...

 

I just started using my P7805 with 16:10 1920x1200. Man I forgot how much I absolutely love the real estate of this thing. It is the only way to got for a DTR in my opinion. I was thinking of getting a new laptop but the displays just aren't up to snuff.

Probably get a T9900 for it and a USB 3.0 express card addapter. That hopefully will keep me in a DTR for the next 4 years or better.

I'd have no issue with getting a new DTR but these displays are just not worth it, again IMHO....................

 

I also 'sign' for this protest! 16:9 is pure crap. Even 16:10 was not for everyone purposes but they forced it ... what's next STRIP LCD ? 16:4 ratio? 1600x400 or maybe 3200x800 :/ Revenue-blinded CEO's.

 

Anyone think that last month's new MacBook Pros will be the last ones that come in 16:10? Will the next refresh of the MacBook Pros (probably in 7 months) be in 16:9, or could they still be 16:10?

 

i would guess that apple will try saving money as 16:9 goes standard as 16:10 will become more expensive.... IMO , apple loves ripping ppl off...

 

Just because you don't value Apple products does not make buying them akin to a rip off.

 

oo.. real fact.. Macbook is a rip off.. other fact.. $50 bucks for a bigger 5400rpm drive.. to replace standard 5400rpm drive.. gee most companies use 7200rpm drives standard.. there's a lot of things i can pick on about apple but not all their products are rip off.. their iphone isn't...its worth paying for it... but the Macbook is a Disgrace IMO.. even a 900 euro Acer timeline does better than it...and way cheaper...

 

We're not here to discuss whether or not Macbooks are a ripoff, but to discuss screens and Macbooks are one of the few notebooks that still offer a 16:10 aspect ratio; they'll probably follow the trend later down the line though.

 

This is a warning for you to stay on topic in this thread or any other for that matter.

 

I recently purchased a Vostro V13 and I must say the 16:9 aspect definitely helps because a 13.3" screen gets a moderate resolution bump and looks look very nice. If it were any higher rez, I don't know if I could see it.

I'm still not a fan of 16:9 and much prefer 16:10 for widescreens as it's a decent compromise but 5:4 gets my vote as my favorite which is great for viewing webpages.

 

13,3" gets a resolution bump? Down you mean?

My 13,3" Vaio is 1280*800 - most 13,3" laptops now are 13xx*768 ...

 

I didn't realize the VAIO was at 1280x800. My V13 is 1366x768 and this is the first 13.3" laptop I have ever owned. I only considered it bump in resolution is because the other 16:9 laptop I own is a 16" Tosh with 1366x768 rez as well.

That's why I said bump as in point of view comparing a 16" vs 13.3" both running the same resolution.

 

Jeez... 16" at 1366x768? I've got a 15.6" at 1920x1080. 768 WAY too little vertical space on anything much larger than 12/13"

 

1366*768 is just an abysmal resolution in general >.<

I don't like how lots of "mainstream" 15" and 16" laptops are carrying that sad excuse for a res

 

It's good enough for Skype and AIM, so people don't care

 

Yep I agree it's a joke.

Good looking laptop other than that.

Neither do I and I wish we had more choices.

 

And the smaller TX was at the same resolution for all I know.

1280*800 was pretty much lower boundary standard (on 16:10) until netbooks came along.
And that experiment a la Vaio UX - that type of ultra portable had smaller screens.

 

Well, 1366*768 is roughly the same number of pixels as 1280*800, 2.45% more in fact.

 

But width, not height, or do you turn your laptop by 90°?

So what do I gain from extra width? Nothing.
I don' even use most pages full screen as they would be too wide for me o read comfortably on a 13,3" screen.

 

I'm not commenting at all on which is better, just saying that technically speaking 1366*768 is a greater resolution, even if it is a worse one.

However, I will note that there are ways to benefit from additional width, such as viewing two pages side by side, and moving your taskbar to the left of your screen instead of the bottom.

 

16:10 ftw, although i occasionally do like 16:9 in some cases, especially on smaller nb's.

 

You didn't explicitly state it - but in my eyes implied it.
Anyway...

Things like moving the taskbar are nonsense - you buy a worse screen, then try to accommodate your OS layout to that worse product??
Its sort of as if you bought a mobile that doesn't have a speaker, and you plug in a headset saying "look how great it is, no problem it lacks the speaker, I can use a headset".

Also, all applications have their toolbars at the top - do you want all those redesigned too?
They are at the top as its the easiest to use configuration with the overall shortest travelling path.

 

The discussion on screen layout is an interesting one, but I think you're too quick to decide on what's easiest to use.
While I agree that currently most operating systems and applications make poor use of horizontal screen space, that doesn't mean that they can't use it to great effect and won't in the future. The Windows Sidebar is one example of such, though far from perfect. The shortest travelling distance argument falls apart when you consider that if travelling distance was the only priority, there wouldn't be any reason to make screens larger in the first place.

 

Sidebar - guess what, I don't use one.
And that's just an artificial argument... let's dump junk at the side to better sell wider screens?
You can use one if you actually have a use for it... but then a 16:10 screen still works well.
Most software doesn't work well with a wider screen - try editing a portrait image in Photoshop on 16:9 vs. 16:10 - you'll see a large difference.
Websites on Dreamweaver the same.
Word as well.

Excel - spreadsheets are high not wide.

And the argument that you can view 2 documents side by side - you can do that on 16:10 - and if you really need it, you use a second screen, 16:9 doesn't help there unless we have something like 21:9 or whatever that is... although if that happens I might go to Japan and throw a Vaio at Sony's CEO...

It seems that people are buying into this whole HD and what not nonsense and defend 16:9 screens the same way they defend apple...
its the same pattern.

One of the earlier arguments brought in this thread - and still hold - are that productivity on average got better from 4:3 to 16:10 and got worse to 16:9 - but still people try to sell 16:9 as this great new format...
Well its not - it's rubbish and turns your laptop into an ugly glorified DVD player...

 

Did you just happen to miss the most important part of my post? "While I agree that currently most operating systems and applications make poor use of horizontal screen space, that doesn't mean that they can't use it to great effect and won't in the future."

As long as screens will keep having more and more pixels in the future, the 16:10 vs 16:9 issue doesn't concern me too much.

 

It doesn't matter... even if you move all toolbars to the side.. it will still be ugly and inefficient.
If you like it, use it.

I will try not to as long as possible.

 

Ugliness and inefficiency are all very much a matter of what you're used to. Plenty of people will disagree with you that 16:10 is better than 4:3 for precisely the same reasons you're using.

 

But in contrast to the current swap most people had 1024*768 4:3 displays, and most 16:10 displays are 1280*800.

And yes, 16:10 did take getting used to, but you didn't LOOSE anything.
(Rather quickly for me by the way)

 

As I already said before, more pixels is better. 1600*1200 is also a 4:3 display standard, and I'm willing to bet people who had the QXGA (2048*1536) ThinkPad didn't take a liking to 16:10.

 

I've mentioned this in the past, but comparing aspect ratios is a bit of a stale argument; it's better to talk about actual resolutions because the case will vary.

For example, the "high resolution" gets a net loss from 16:10 to 16:9 i.e. going from 1920*1200 to 1920*1080. No matter how you slice it the higher end segment of notebook resolutions lost in terms of screen real estate.

However as some pointed out, they have made "1080p" more mainstream on smaller sized laptops(i.e. 15" and even 13").

 

Indeed. 1080p rather than 1920*1200 is even more of a loss in desktop screens, where you don't have to worry about the DPI being too high. Sadly, it's going to be a while before we start seeing a lot of 2048*1152.

 

I would agree that the arguments get a bit confused because we have both aspect ratio issues and resolution issues. For desktop screens 16:9 has actually been rather nice because it used to be you had to go to a 24" screen to get better than 1680x10X0. So long as the DPI didn't bother you, the advent of 16:9 screens made cheap 1920x1080 was great. I got more pixels wide for the same price. That helps when I do long horizontal spreadsheets. On 14" laptops we didn't really have a high resolution option with 16:10. We had low rez 1280x800 and higher rez 1440x900. Now we have the option to get 1600x900 on a 14" laptop. I see that as a nice upgrade in resolution. So in that case I see 16:9 as a benefit. But in 15" computers I find that the 16:9 models are wider than I like and I lost my 1920x1200 option. I also don't find 1366x756 to be better than 1280x800.

But we come to the issue of aspect ratios. Ignoring resolution then I don't care for 16:9 on just about anything other than 17" class laptops. On a 15" you seem to end up with a very wide computer for little loss in height. On a 14" you just have an even narrower palm rest. The same is true on the smaller computers. All would be just as nice with a 16:10 aspect ratio screen.

When we look at 16"+ screen laptops then I felt the 16:10s were getting too big. At 16-17" 16:9 would give me 1080 resolution without seaming quite as large as an older 16:10 17" computer.

As for desk displays, well then then I find that either 16:9 screens seem very short for their width or very wide for a reasonable height.


A while back I was trying to choose between 1600x1200 and 1680x1050. Each had about the same number

 

the fact the new envy 17's are 16:9 is one of the main things holding me back from switching but I think i'm gonna switch anyways. I just hope going from my 17" 16:10 to a 17" 16:9 isnt gonna be a huge dramatic change.

 

I depends. If your old computer was a 1920x1200 and the new one is 1920x1080 then yes it will be lame. If the old one was 1650x1050 and you don't mind the slightly smaller pixel size then 1920x1080 will be an upgrade. It depends on what you go to and from.

 

my m17x as you can see in sig is 1920 x 1200 dual ccfl and a matte screen finish i installed myself

 

And you can't watch videos on 16:10?
Will those small black bars kill you or what??

And if you have video in 4:3 you're worse of with 16:9 than 16:10.

Problem is:
16:9 is worse for work, and only offers a potential gain with video.
16:10 is no loss for video but better for work.

 

no.

because 1080p is a step down from wuxga; and until they offer any 16:9 resolution with a pixel count above wuxga, i'm going to continually about it.

yes, 16:9 sucks--and i'd still rather have 16:10--but if it's going to be rammed down our throats, they could at least keep increasing the resolutions.



congratulations on being a person who would be better served by a desktop.

on the other hand, people like me--who actually have to ROUGH IT for a living--can't bring an external monitor along for the ride. trying to excuse a pathetically low resolution by highlighting compatibility with external monitors begs the question of why such a laptop is worth the initial purchase price in the first place.

 

Fancy buying or renting me a large flat and buying me a desktop?

Laptop screens are actually pretty good - and if you buy a good laptop a better desktop screen would be quite expensive, true for my Vaio anyway.

I DON'T want a desktop and I don't want a desktop screen wasting my space.
And what's you argument anyway?
Let's make a good product bad so that people need to buy more?

And the fact that every company is changing to 16:9 doesn't mean we can't complain - too bad I'm not in the market for a new laptop at the moment - it would be fun sending emails to companies like Sony asking why they use a rubbish 16:9 screen that reduces productivity and is impractical...

If nobody ever complains companies push you around - if enough people complain it might change something.

 

I can already tell you their response. "It what our customers have asked for as hte BluRay format is popular with our customers and they compliment each other perfectly."

16:9 sux