The official 16:9 screen protest thread

On a 13.3 yes, but 1920x1080 on a 18.4" screen ....yeah...

 

You don't think they can read? And for the record, this discussion didn't begin here.

No, 16:9 is!!!

 

You may need to update your repository if that isn't a joke. A golden rectangle has side ratios of approximately 1.618:1; a 16:10 screen would simplify down to 1.6:1, and a 16:9 to 1.778:1. This would make the 16:10 screen rather closer to the golden rectangle.

 

But those 18,4" users could get 1920*1200 before - so they loose out too.

The question should really be "who benefits from 16:9".

Well, only the industry that gets to use cheaper panels - and the people who believe a laptop is a dedicated DVD player and are allergic to large black bars on their screen.

 

I've resigned myself to the fact that 16:9 is now the norm and nothing is going to change it back to 16:10. When Dell and Lenovo rolled out the 15.6" 16:9 Latitude and ThinkPad T/W-series, the battle was lost.

What I find very disturbing is how few models, even high-end ones, offer display upgrades!? I can't fathom paying $1500+ for a 15.6 notebook with a quad-core processor and top-of-the-line graphics card but only getting a 1366x768 resolution display! Dell is the only one offering a few upgrades on consumer models (Studio, I believe). Lenovo, Dell and HP offer high-res on some business models, but that's it.

Sony briefly had a 14.0" model and the top configurations had a 1600x900 display, which is perfect for that size screen. But they disappeared very quickly and no one else has offered the option. And 15.6" models should at least have a 1600x900 option, if not 1920x1080! I hated 1280x800 and I hate 1366x768 even more, I've always had higher res screens so I have more 'space' and can see two windows simultaneously if I need to.....ugh!

 

Exactly, this ticks me off like no one can imagine. There's a contingent of people waiting with baited breath to pay more for a high resolution option. Combine that with companies "creative marketing" like "HD+ HighResolution display" and it makes it hard to see exactly what is offered.

One good thing is that the Latitude Z is decidedly niche, so hopefully Dell would be wise not to go 16:9. Then again, it's Dell and I've kinda lost faith in them to get anything right...

So far my only machine considerations are these:
-Lenovo T500
-Dell E6400
-HP Envy 14 (if they can find another manufacturer for the Radiance high rez display)
-HP EliteBook 8440p

The HP EliteBook is too expensive even from eBay, I'm not really a fan of the new Latitude design (seems to be step down solidity wise than the D630) so only the Lenovo would I consider.

 

you're not listening. This debate has already been fought long ago (by the pros), and 16:9 won!

The same thing can be said of the opposite camp. In fact, a laptop is a "tool"; and can be used is a variety of way depending on the intent of the buyer. Some people (me included), buy their computers especially as a tool for multimedia.

Dell will do what the market compels them to do. And right now, the money is in the TV standard.

On the contrary, there will always be a portion of laptops that go against the grain--niche market. If you're not satisfied with the 16:9 standard, go with one of them.

 

see above post

 

If that is so, why have no niche models stuck around with the 4:3 display, which was the 'norm' prior to 16:10? I know quite a few people who would pay top dollar for a new laptop with a 4:3 SXGA+ (1400x1050) display...

Whenever I see HD High-Resolution I automatically assume 1366x768. I’ve only seen HD+ used to refer to 1600x900, which is rarely seen on models under 17.3” (where it’s standard) with a few exceptions listed below.

Anything over 14.1" is too large and bulky for my taste, so my idea of a high-res display is 1440x900 (rather than 1280x800). When I eventually have no other choice than a 16:9 display, a 14.0" won't bother me if it's the higher res 1600x900 and NOT 1366x768!!!

At the moment, the only 14.0" (16:9) models available with an upgrade to 1600x900 resolution are the HP EliteBook 8440p (starts at $1499 for least expensive configuration with that display) and the Toshiba Tecra M11 which starts under $900 but feels and looks much cheaper and less durable than the EliteBook, ThinkPad or Latitude E-series. The ThinkPad T410/T410s and Latitude E6410 are sticking with their 16:10 displays for while. The T410 and E6410 offer 1440x900 optional upgrades and the T410s has a standard 14.1" 1440x900 display. I love the T410s, but I'm too frugal (okay, CHEAP) to pay $1400+ for a new one! =)

I’ve had a nightmare experience with HP and another with Lenovo that wasn’t much better. I was really disappointed by Lenovo because I had always loved my ThinkPads but doubt I’ll ever buy another one now. I had an issue with Dell over a Studio 15 laptop that I bought just over two years ago. I finally decided that it was time to take the bull by the horns (or the b@lls, more accurately) and raise HELL on a daily basis via email, phone, tech support chat and in every site with an audience of current or potential future Dell owners! It didn’t take long at all to get it replaced with the newly revised version with higher specs all under warranty! I sold it on Ebay and washed my hands with all consumer/retail laptops and will be sticking with business models (made out of some sort of metal alloy, not plastic)!

The Z600 was/is an interesting product, but I think it’s a niche product for a non-existent niche….it would be much more compelling with a Core i5-i7 processor and switchable dedicated graphics. It’s too expensive for the performance it delivers, no matter how good it looks! And a 16.0 display at that price point should be 1920x1080, no question!

I currently have a Latitude E6400 and it has an awesome 14.1" WXGA+ (1440x900) LED Display. It's maximum brightness is rated at 300nits, compared the 200nits for the 14.1" 1440x900 display offered on the ThinkPad T410. The T410s is the only other laptop of similar size that also has a 300nit display. Even after two years, it's still as bright and vibrant as it was brand new. I can snag an E6410 refurb from Dell Outlet for $750 or less with the specs I'm wanting. I've been considering trading up lately....

BTW, you mentioned how pricey HP EliteBooks can be, especially with any upgrades. Check out the HP Business Outlet if you're ever in the market for one- LINK.

 

I was arguing specifically about 16:10 being closer to the golden rectangle, which was the bolded part of your previous quote, with your statement that "No, 16:9 is!!!" If you didn't mean to argue that 16:9 is closer to a golden rectangle than 16:10, you should have removed the bolding.

 

Yeah, my family's experience with a HP desktop leaves me wary, despite the elitebook's sexiness. I completely overlooked Toshiba but I agree....not really on my radar due to quality concerns. As for the Z, they say its designed for Executives but I'm 99 percent sure that most executives are treated like any other employee ("here's your E6400, have a good day") in terms of IT so it's no wonder it hasn't done well. Thanks for a link to the HP outlet, I'll check there when I firmly become "in the market" for a new machine!

 

i'm a little tired with all these arguements.. 16:9 will be standard and u can't do anything about it... it will be there for buisness notebooks.. i think this thread needs to close...

 

I get that 16:9 will be the standard. I get that, in the grand scheme of things, the majority of people who buy laptops don't care about resolution and instead get enamored by overly glossy, low-resolution, "It's HD!!!" screens. I get it, I totally understand.


The only thing that makes me a bit upset is the lack of choice in the matter. A simple "Pay XX amount of dollars for a high resolution screen" in the system's configurator would suffice, but no one seems to want to do it.

 

I'm more upset that 1366x768 is "standard" on so many notebooks, even on 17" ones.

Tbh, 16:9 is here to stay, how long will depend on the market really.

 

Well, dell business does in their precision line...also dell xps.
And HP business has options for it too in their elitebooks..

But yea, its getting rarer and rarer

 

The only XPS system (new ones anyway) that offers high resolution is the XPS 15. Even a 15 inch system is too big for college...heck 14 inches is pushing it mobility wise...

 

I think 1366x768 looks great for anything 14" or smaller. If the resolution were higher i'd need a magnifying glass. I have a 13.3" Dell at that resolution and everything looks tight so no complaints from me. Still overall I hate 16:9 and will drag out my next purchase if all I have to choose from is 16:9 format.

 

On that note though - 13,3" with 1280*800 is perfect - yes, the font was a bit small when I got my laptop, but I got used to it quickly.

And 13,3" in 16:10 should be about as high if not slightly higher than 14" 16:9

And it's height you generally lack on pages or in software, not width.

On that note - I find settings on both sides of an application (Visual Studio 2010 for example - if you dock both) rather irritating.

 

Yes, but when it's standard on most 15.6" and even some 17" notebooks, there's a problem IMO.

 

These are the the notebook that need to adapt my modular scheme of design. Once some intrepid manufactures does that then an even greater amount of configuration/upgrades can become more prevalent on notebooks either through the manufacture or via aftermarket. Just parallel what happened to auto sound once it was no longer permanently built-in.

 

There are only like 4 or 5 LCD panel manufacturers in the world; they are the OPEC of the LCD business (heck, they are fined for price fixing back in 2008). Unless a majority of laptop vendors demands 16:10 LCDs back, which is close to impossible, we will be stuck with 16:9 laptop panels.

Oh BTW 1366 x 768 for 15.4 inch blows.

 

Wait a minute...isn't it the market that's suppose to dictate these types of things?

 

The market seems to be flawed...maybe someone from ecpn can help us out..

What seems to have happened is that the laptop+LCD makers have decided that the $50 or so savings obtained by going to 16:9 is going to make them more profits, so the 16:10 has been taken off the market. There still are some 16:10 panels, but they are being offered only in $2000+ business laptops; so consumers not surprisingly arent choosing the 16:10 laptops in big numbers, making this all a self fulfilling cycle. A real choice has not been offered for the market to make.

 

Although I use both aspect ratios (AR) in the laptops I own, I definitely prefer 16:10 (especially if it's RGB LED). For everyone of us that actually care about 16:10 AR, there are thousands of laptops out there that are being purchased by people that say 16:9 is just fine. So until people actually STOP buying these laptops w/ 16:9 ARs, it won't make a lick of difference to the manufacturers.

 

They don't have to stop buying them, but there has to be a market for 16:10, since they are inherently more expensive than a 16:9 ratio display.

 

I held out hope for 16:10 to survive in business laptops, if nothing else...but when the Dell Latitude E5510/E6510 and Lenovo ThinkPad T510/W510 were introduced with a 15.6" 1366x768 display standard earlier this year, I knew that further protest would fall on deaf ears. =( The Latitude E5410 and E6410 and ThinkPad T410/T410s are the only 16:10 displays left in each of their mainstream product lines. Both still have 12.1" ultraportables and tablets with 16:10 displays.

The next hardware update will most likely see the 14.1" 16:10 Latitude and ThinkPad models morph into 16:9 14.0" displays. The HP EliteBook and Toshiba Tecra M11 have already made the move and have 14.0" 1366x768 displays standard, but at least they offer the upgrade to a 14.0" 1600x900 resolution. As we've seen recently with the HP ENVY 14 and Dell XPS 14, it's almost impossible to find anything under 15.5" with higher than 1366x768 resolution in retail/consumer laptops.

At this point, I'm less concerned about the shift from 16:10 to 16:9 Aspect Ratio than I am the lack of 16:9 displays with resolution higher than 1366x768!!! A handful of higher-end 15.6" or larger models may have either a 1600x900 or 1920x1080 option, but they are few. Two years ago, there were FAR more 15.4" laptops that offered an upgrade to 1440x900 or 1680x1050 from the standard 1280x800 than there are now. And quite a few 14.1" models had 1280x800 standard and 1440x900 as an upgrade. I'm planning to go ahead and buy a new Dell Latitude E6410 with a 14.1" WXGA+ (1440x900) LED Display before the end of the year to replace my two-year-old E6400 with the same display.....because who knows what will (or won't) be available in the next model???

 

allfiredup - I think you have some aspect ratios mixed up

 

I think I fixed it now, thanks.....I'm driving myself crazy with this stuff! I need a Valium....and a drink, when noon rolls around....

 

I still think the first 16:9 needs to be a 16:10

A drink? Have a good cup of tea white or green if you don't want the caffeine of black tea. (or herbal tea?)

 

Tea without caffeine? What would be the point of that??? That's crazy talk... thanks for the proofreading!

 

That's something you drink to enjoy the taste of the liquid

I can just make some cheapo Yorkshire Water tea to drink and keep me awake - or I can have some white tea, green tea, or even black tea made with a stopwatch according to brewing instructions to enjoy the taste (Green & White without Milk too).

You're welcome

 

I was only kidding about the tea! My favorite beverage in the world (after vodka and red wine) is Rooibos tea (aka- redbush tea). No caffeine, but it smells and tastes wondeful and it's quite relaxing. It has a high level of antioxidants and other health-enhancing benefits. It's the one healthy thing I do...after red wine, of course, which also has plenty of health benefits, or that's my excuse anyway! =)

 

Which means you never drink more than one glass...right?

Incidentally, caffeine is also healthy in moderation.

But back on topic, why don't you guys just write the manufactures and ask for a separate class of laptop with the old screen ratio? After all, they don't care if the screen is hexagonal, as long as they're making money.

 

Actually... different aspect ratio = extra cost, especially if they make one for you.

I suppose if you are a millionaire and are willing to pay the development costs they might care - else they won't.

 

Sure they care, market research is done continuously. In fact, I'll bet you've probably received some kind of survey or the like within the last 6 month? I know I have.

Anyway, I'm aware you may have to pay extra, but then that's the price you pay for being non mainstream. Still, the point is, it's still available.

 

Actually, I haven't.

I only ever got a survey after my Vaio was in for a warranty repair (fan died after 2 years) and from Belkin after they decided to replace a router - and the replacement causes issues too...

Else - no, I don't get customer satisfaction surveys.

I also do not get any spam.

And no, companies do not care - they only start to care if enough people complain - and that's generally in the thousands.
(Exception small private companies - but they don't exist in the laptop world)

 

I doubt that the cost savings are anywhere near $50. Probably less than $10 in most cases.

Basically, the 16:10 aspect ratio is dying because there isn't any substantial demand for it from the consumer sector. Consumers are watching 16:9 ratio content, so having a black bar on the top and bottom of the screen isn't much of selling point.

As far as business applications, it's a case to the consumer market dictating supply. Business users might prefer 16:10, but that sort of preference is far less important than the cost issue.

 

Not really. That resolution fits the content and is acceptable to the vast majority of users. I'd argue that anyone who demands a higher resolution would probably upgrade to a far more expensive gaming notebook if it's all that much of a concern.

 

Not necessarily...

Gaming notebooks are not the most discrete laptops when it comes to their exterior design and battery life is generally horrible.

And considering that most people will loose vertical resolution 800 to 768 that's a large loss for all the portable laptops - yes, you can get a Sony Z with 1920*1080 on 13,1" - and won't be able to read that without a magnifying glass... but on my Vaio 1280*800 on 13,3" is perfect - coupled with long battery life, and quite decent computing power it's a perfect laptop.

Want to edit my photographs on the go - no problem - want to read my news on the go, write something, no problem.

 

It is surprising how quickly 4:3 disappeared from business notebooks, except for a handful of rugged notebooks like the Panasonic Toughbook. One reason might be the size issue. Those old 4:3 notebooks had a big footprint, and even a 16:10 notebook feels bulkier than a 16:9 with the same nominal screen size.

 

Only that a 16:10 at 13" would be the same size as an A4 piece of paper - 13,3" is just a tad larger.

The other point with the transition from 4:3 to 16:10 is that most people gained resolution - now the majority looses - and the people who used the highest resolution 4:3 screens loose even more.

Sony ha a little G series business laptop when 16:10 was the common aspect ratio... it only lasted through two models, possibly due to price.

The question is really, what benefit does 16:9 bring to the consumer - and apart from the people who think laptops are DVD players and who are allergic to black bars the answer is pretty much "none" - there are no benefits.

 

In that case, they can buy business workstations.

Well in that size category, you really see MacBooks dominating anyway. I would be a bit surprised if the 13 inch MacBook Pro is outselling the Sony Z-series by a ratio of 100 to 1.

Apple has stuck with 16:10, although it might just be because they are always behind the curve as far as hardware. Considering how outdated the processors and graphics are, the old style display might just be overdue for an update as well.

 

Workstations still have a horrible battery life and are heavy.

apple - yuck... I will never ever buy an apple product.
I don't need a product that looks as if it has been licked smooth by steve jobs....

And to be honest - why should I switch to an overhyped fashion item if all I want is a good WINDOWS notebook?

 

The problem with that theory is that most of the old 4:3 screens of yesteryear were of XGA resolution, or 1024 x 768, so it's not as if any vertical pixels were lost in comparison with the current 1368 x 768.

As much as I like Sony, I pretty much have come to the conclusion that it's a company in decline. I really can't understand why they are still in the PC market. They aren't cost competitive, can't keep up with the hardware cycle across their product range and have so much bloatware that they have a bloatware delete option.

I hate to break it to you, but the DVD is fading away in favor of streamed, subscription based entertainment.

The real advantage of 16:9 is that it matches the intended content and give you a more compact foot print.

Any yes, 16:9 makes a laptop more compact in terms of depth than 16:10. By now, most people forget how big 4:3 notebooks were in comparison.

But the bigger issue is that consumers have almost universally accept 16:9, even though it does make for a tiny screen on a netbook. It all comes down to content and tidy dimensions.

 

I can't see a problem with the bloat - it's easy to clean up, and they do give a bloatware free option nowadays.
Updates - as far as I am aware they update regularly too.

What I do agree with is that Sony is expensive, and it seems slowly fading when it comes to build quality - the Z seems worse built than the SZ.

 

If you need high end hardware and adequate cooling, a workstation or gaming notebook with comparable specs get the job done. It all comes down to what you need. Personally, I've been shocked by the poor battery life of some last generation SULV subnotebooks. It all comes down to what you need.

I'm no Apple fan either. I'm just pointing out that they literally have almost all of the $1,000+ consumer market. I understand why people buy MacBooks, although I disagree with just about every aspect of Apple's business model, they sure rake in the money.

Not suggesting that you should, although it isn't hard to see why so many people do. Sure, I might be appalled by many the many quirks of MacBook ergonomics, but there again, I probably have a far more specific set of requirements than the average MacBook user.

Just to add insult to injury, I just noticed that the new 11-inch MacBook Air has a 16:9 screen. Maybe it represents the future for Apple, because the rest of the hardware is just as dated as the 13-inch MacBooks.

 

Yes, but it really is a shame that they've gone that far with bloatware. Sony tries to be upscale, but they adopts the same tactics as HP.

The last time I checked, SonyStyle was still selling a 2008 vintage business notebook.

Oh, and the biggest joke of all is how Sony stuck with CCFL backlit displays. It's downright embarassing.

You know, the last time I checkout one in the Sony outlet store, I was too blown away by the price to even notice the build quality.

 

To be honest - there is nothing inherently wrong with CCFL - if it gives nice colours, that's all the "average customer" cares about - yes, LEDs need less energy, but does the average user notice it? Nope - most people buy laptops that never leave the house.

Prices - I don't mind quality having it's price. My SZ was 2440€ - now it's 2 years and 3 months old - plenty of heavy usage, I had the fan replaced under warranty after 2 years (how did that break??) and else... well, there is the touchpad - apparently there is a flaw in the alps models used - but apart from that? It's fine.

The structure of the laptop is fine - and it's in a bag with other stuff several times per week - travelling from uni and back - so in that respect - it was possibly the best choice I could have made
(And it still copes well with the RAW files of my 5D MK II)

 

The real advantage of 16:9 is the LCD manufactures can produce 16:9 panels more efficiently than 16:10 panels. There was no consumer push for this aspect ratio. The LCD suppliers simply told the PC makers it will be cheaper to use 16:9 vs 16:10 panels. If the PC makers really wanted 16:10 the panels fabs would make them. If people were still demanding Intel 486 chips Intel would still make them. However, the PC makers are very cost sensitive. Most buyers don't know the difference, they just see 15.x vs 15.x or 14.x vs 14.x. For those buyers they will go with what's cheaper. Well what's cheaper is 16:9 because the LCD makers charge less for it. The only way consumer wishes were part of this is the masses didn't protest when they were offered cheaper computers with 16:9 screens vs 16:10. Had consumers shied away from 16:9 screens then we would still have 16:10 or even 4:3 screens.

 

Computers are machines; that can be used in any way, fashion, or form that the purchaser chooses. In fact, some people buy their laptops specifically for DVD/entertainment application. Hence designation, Media Center.